iv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my

eye.

You have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_ from Sychar to Jacob’s well:—“Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither _come all the way_ hither to draw.”—What has happened? For ἔρχωμαι, I discover that you have silently substituted ΔΙέρχωμαι. (Even διέρχωμαι has no such meaning: but let _that_ pass.) What then was your authority for thrusting διέρχωμαι (which by the way is a patent absurdity) into the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of had character_(903) (B א), which, being derived from a common corrupt original, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:—“If the Evangelist had written ἔρχ-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into δι-έρχωμαι?”... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the inveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ΜΗΔΕΕΡΧΩΜΑΙ before him, _reduplicated the antecedent_ ΔΕ. The sum of the matter is _that_!... Pass 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up afresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,—is urged upon the wondering body of Revisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,—is accepted by yourself;—finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but at last happily recovered, utterance of the “Woman of Samaria!”... Ἄπαγε.

Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course assume that the change results from the Revisers’ skill in translating,—the advances which have been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before us survives in the English margin.

And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The rule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,—the Rule which re-assured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a Revised New Testament,—expressly provided that, whenever the underlying Greek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the margin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first. You have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,—in other words, you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your compact,—that compliance with this condition would have been simply impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith.

_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._

How serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only know who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention. Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of genuine Scripture,—but you have been careful that no trace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT pronounced a tremendous doom(904) against those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city”? Surely you will not pretend to tell me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the known copies but nine_,—by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the Æthiopic Versions,—besides Irenæus(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:—you will not venture to say (will you?) that words so attested are so evidently a “plain and clear error,” as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity “that such things were”! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the Eastern Church,—which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark’s Day:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the consentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if you can, than the “Elders” with whom Irenæus held converse,—men who must have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,—Have you studied S. Mark’s Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably corrupt Recension of the second Gospel?

But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,—without leaving behind either note or comment of any sort,—you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44, the solemn words which I proceed to underline:—“_Bless them that curse you_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which _despitefully use you and_ persecute you.” You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superstitiously fond, B and א: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES besides:—of almost all the VERSIONS:—and of a host of primitive FATHERS: for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D. 140),—by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),—by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),—by Clemens Alexan. (A.D. 192),—by Origen (A.D. 210),—by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd cent.),—by Eusebius,—by Gregory Nyss.,—by Chrysostom,—by Isidorus,—by Nilus,—by Cyril,—by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins, by Tertullian,—by Lucifer,—by Ambrose,—by Hilary,—by Pacian,—by Augustine,—by Cassian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your notion of what constitutes “_clearly preponderating Evidence_” must be freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of “_the now established Principles of Textual Criticism_” that a bishop is at liberty to blot out from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject, on the plea that they are “plain and clear errors,” sayings attested by twelve primitive Fathers,—half of whom lived and died before our two oldest manuscripts (B and א) came into being:—If all this be so indeed, permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY “_innocent ignorance_”(910) of those “Principles” for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of them,—no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down upon.

As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have adopted the extraordinary practice of encumbering your margin with doubts as to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body, _retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,—His Evangelists and Apostles,—to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the fullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His “Agony and bloody sweat,”—together with His “Prayer on behalf of His murderers,”—_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S. Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of documentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an overwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_ in the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two lines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to evacuate one of the grandest assertions of our SAVIOUR’S GODHEAD. May I be permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?

Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you undertook the work of Revision, was, that “_the Headings of Chapters should be revised_.” This Rule you have not only failed to comply with; but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our chapters back.

You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our _Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that _they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture are they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may never be taken away.

And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that the Revisers not only “_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text,” but even acted in open defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were authorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;—it has certainly been no fault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that “_nothing can be more unjust_” than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having exceeded their Instructions,—I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE DENIAL?

[16] The calamity of the “New Greek Text” traced to its source.

There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far succumbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he became aware of any such _manœuvre_ on the part of two of the society, he would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this effect:—

“This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been appointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to revise the _Authorized English Version_,—introducing such changes only as are absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on this head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out. True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual Criticism—(such as it is)—to correct ‘_plain and clear errors_’ in the Greek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own singular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,—is intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope that I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is _facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other, prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,—_there_ the Received Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will remember, to ‘make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary_.’(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that anything in the Received Text should be claimed to be ‘a clear and plain error,’ on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally known: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet here, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to _revise our _‘Authorized English Version.’”... Such, in substance, is the kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal Chairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the sheets of Westcott and Hort’s N. T.; especially if he was aware that those Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of becoming a foregone conclusion,—unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.

But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort _your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main _your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Convocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,—whose sentiments on the subject you had before adopted,—you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,—more disappointing,—more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.

[17] Bp. Ellicott’s defence of the “New Greek Text,” in sixteen particulars, examined.

It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence passed upon your new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your pamphlet “strange,” because it displays such singular inaptitude to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to _Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face _Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_suprà_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony of B א, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive copies of bad character,—cannot possibly stand against the testimony of ALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on “those two oldest manuscripts _the vast majority of Critics set a high value_.” Very likely: but for all _that_, you are I suppose aware that B and א are two of the most corrupt documents in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_ of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are against you,—how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your self-complacent announcement,—“We cannot hesitate to _express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have been the judgment of Lachmann._” Do you desire that _that_ should pass for argument?

To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile. Instead of repeating what I have already delivered—briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,—I will content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember rightly, was Nelson’s plan when he fought the battle of the Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the enemy;—lashed himself to the foe;—and poured in his broadsides. We remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average understanding and fair education:—

(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,—complained of, above, pp. 122-4.—You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,—falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. 416.)

(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,—proved to be indefensible, above, pp. 91-2.—The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,—on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)—“it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with א.”

(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,—shown to be unreasonable, above, p. 92.—You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,—remarking that “here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse.”

(4) _The substitution of_ ἠπόρει for ἐποίει, in S. Mark vi. 20,—strongly complained of, above, pp. 66-9.—Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that “in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of א before them.”

(5) _The thrusting of_ πάλιν (after ἀποστελεῖ) into S. Mark xi. 3,—objected against, above, pp. 56-8.—You defend yourself at pp. 48-9,—and “cannot doubt that the Revisers were perfectly justified” in doing “as Tischendorf and Tregelles had done before them,”—viz. _inventing_ a new Gospel incident.

(6) _The mess you have made_ of S. Mark xi. 8,—exposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, above, pp. 58-61,—you defend at pp. 49-52. You have “preferred to read with Tischendorf and Tregelles.” About,

(7) S. Mark xvi. 9-20,—and (8) S. Luke ii. 14,—I shall have a few serious words to say immediately. About,

(9) the 20 _certainly genuine_ words you have omitted from S. Luke ix. 55, 56,—I promise to give you at no distant date an elaborate lecture. “Are we to understand” (you ask) “that the Reviewer honestly believes the added words to have formed part of the Sacred Autograph?” (“The _omitted_ words,” you mean.) To be sure you are!—I answer.

(10) _The amazing blunder_ endorsed by the Revisers in S. Luke x. 15; which I have exposed above, at pp. 54-6.—You defend the blunder (as usual) at pp. 55-6, remarking that the Revisers, “_with Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _and Tregelles_, adopt the interrogative form.” (This seems to be a part of your style.)

(11) _The depraved exhibition of the _LORD’S_ Prayer_ (S. Luke xi. 2-4) which I have commented on above, at pp. 34-6,—you applaud (as usual) at pp. 56-8 of your pamphlet, “with Tischendorf and Tregelles.”

(12) _The omission_ of 7 important words in S. Luke xxiii. 38, I have commented on, above, at pp. 85-8.—You defend the omission, and “the texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles,” at pp. 58-9.

(13) _The gross fabrication_ in S. Luke xxiii. 45, I have exposed, above, at pp. 61-5.—You defend it, at pp. 59-61.

(14) _A plain omission_ in S. John xiv. 4, I have pointed out, above, at pp. 72-3.—You defend it, at pp. 61-2 of your pamphlet.

(15) “_Titus Justus_,” thrust by the Revisers into Acts xviii. 7, I have shown to be an imaginary personage, above, at pp. 53-4.—You stand up for the interesting stranger at pp. 62-4 of your pamphlet. Lastly,

(16) My discussion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (_suprà_ pp. 98-106),—you contend against from p. 64 to p. 76.—The true reading of this important place, (which is not _your_ reading,) you will find fully discussed from p. 424 to p. 501.

I have already stated why I dismiss _thirteen_ out of your sixteen instances in this summary manner. The remaining _three_ I have reserved for further discussion for a reason I proceed to explain.

[18] Bp. Ellicott’s claim that the Revisers were guided by “the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities,”—disproved by an appeal to their handling of S. Luke ii. 14 and of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The self-same claim,—(namely, of abiding by the verdict of Catholic Antiquity,)—vindicated, on the contrary, for the “Quarterly Reviewer.”

You labour hard throughout your pamphlet to make it appear that the point at which our methods, (yours and mine,) respectively diverge,—is, that _I_ insist on making my appeal to the “_Textus Receptus_;” _you_, to _Ancient Authority_. But happily, my lord Bishop, this is a point which admits of being brought to issue by an appeal to fact. _You_ shall first be heard: and you are observed to express yourself on behalf of the Revising body, as follows:

“It was impossible to mistake the conviction upon which its Textual decisions were based.

“It was a conviction that (1) THE TRUE TEXT WAS NOT TO BE SOUGHT IN THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS; or (2) In the bulk of the Cursive Manuscripts; or (3) In the Uncials (with or without the support of the _Codex Alexandrinus_;) or (4) In the Fathers who lived after Chrysostom; or (5) In Chrysostom himself and his contemporaries; BUT (6) IN THE CONSENTIENT TESTIMONY OF THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES.”—(p. 28.)

In such terms you venture to contrast our respective methods. You want the public to believe that I make the “Textus Receptus” “_a standard from which there shall be no appeal_,”—entertain “the notion that it is _little else than sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last 300 years_,”(916)—and so forth;—while _you_ and your colleagues act upon the conviction that the Truth is rather to be sought “_in the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” I proceed to show you, by appealing to an actual instance, that neither of these statements is correct.

(_a_) And first, permit me to speak for myself. Finding that you challenge the Received reading of S. LUKE ii. 14, (“_good will towards men_”);—and that, (on the authority of 4 Greek Codices [א A B D], all _Latin_ documents, and the Gothic Version,) you contend that “_peace among men in whom he is well pleased_” ought to be read, instead;—I make my appeal unreservedly to ANTIQUITY.(917) I request the _Ancients_ to adjudicate between you and me by favouring us with their verdict. Accordingly, I find as follows:

That, in the IInd century,—the Syriac Versions and Irenæus _support the Received Text_:

That, in the IIIrd century,—the Coptic Version,—Origen in 3 places, and—the Apostolical Constitutions in 2, do the same:

That, in the IVth century, (_to which century_, you are invited to remember, _codices_ B _and_ א _belong_,)—Eusebius,—Aphraates the Persian,—Titus of Bostra,—each in 2 places:—Didymus in 3:—Gregory of Nazianzus,—Cyril of Jer.,—Epiphanius 2—and Gregory of Nyssa—4 times: Ephraem Syr.,—Philo bp. of Carpasus,—Chrysostom 9 times,—and an unknown Antiochian contemporary of his:—these eleven, I once more find, are _every one against you_:

That, in the Vth century,—besides the Armenian Version, Cyril of Alex. in 14 places:—Theodoret in 4:—Theodotus of Ancyra in 5:—Proclus:—Paulus of Emesa:—the Eastern bishops of Ephesus collectively, A.D. 431;—and Basil of Seleucia:—_these contemporaries of cod._ A I find are _all eight against you_:

That, in the VIth century,—besides the Georgian—and Æthiopic Versions,—Cosmas, 5 times:—Anastasius Sinait. and Eulogius, (_contemporaries of cod._ D,) are _all three with the Traditional Text_:

That, in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries,—Andreas of Crete, 2:—pope Martinus at the Lat. Council:—Cosmas, bp. of Maiume near Gaza,—and his pupil John Damascene;—together with Germanus, abp. of Constantinople:—are again _all five with the Traditional Text_.

To these 35, must be added 18 other ancient authorities with which the reader has been already made acquainted (viz. at pp. 44-5): all of which bear the self-same evidence.

Thus I have enumerated _fifty-three_ ancient Greek authorities,—of which _sixteen_ belong to the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth centuries: and _thirty-seven_ to the Vth, VIth, VIIth, and VIIIth.

And now, which of us two is found to have made the fairer and the fuller appeal to “the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities:” _you_ or _I_?... This first.

And next, since the foregoing 53 names belong to some of the most famous personages in Ecclesiastical antiquity: are dotted over every region of ancient Christendom: in many instances are _far more ancient than codices_ B _and_ א:—with what show of reason will you pretend that the evidence concerning S. Luke ii. 14 “_clearly preponderates_” in favour of the reading which you and your friends prefer?

I claim at all events to have demonstrated that _both_ your statements are unfounded: viz. (1) That _I_ seek for the truth of Scripture in the “Textus Receptus:” and (2) That _you_ seek it in “the consentient testimony of the _most ancient authorities_.”—(Why not frankly avow that you believe the Truth of Scripture is to be sought for, and found, in “_the consentient testimony of codices_ א _and_ B”?)

(_b_) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in token that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity” (p. 53), (whatever _that_ may mean,) between verses 8 and 9. _Your_ ground for thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B and א omit them:—that a few late MSS. exhibit a wretched alternative for them:—and that Eusebius says they were often away. Now, _my_ method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to “_the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_.” And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in question I find are recognized,

In the IInd century,—By the Old Latin—and Syriac Verss.:—by Papias;—Justin M.;—Irenæus;—Tertullian.

In the IIIrd century,—By the Coptic—and the Sahidic Versions:—by Hippolytus;—by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage;—by the “Acta Pilati;”—and by the “Apostolical Constitutions” in two places.

In the IVth century,—By Cureton’s Syr. and the Gothic Verss.:—besides the Syriac Table of Canons;—Eusebius;—Macarius Magnes;—Aphraates;—Didymus;—the Syriac “Acts of the Ap.;”—Epiphanius;—Leontius;—ps.-Ephraem;—Ambrose;—Chrysostom;—Jerome;—Augustine.

In the Vth century,—Besides the Armenian Vers.,—by codices A and C;—by Leo;—Nestorius;—Cyril of Alexandria;—Victor of Antioch;—Patricius;—Marius Mercator.

In the VIth and VIIth centuries,—Besides cod. D,—the Georgian and Æthiopic Verss.:—by Hesychius;—Gregentius;—Prosper;—John, abp. of Thessalonica;—and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem.... (See above, pages 36-40.)

And now, once more, my lord Bishop,—Pray which of us is it,—_you_ or _I_,—who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in _the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities_”? On _my_ side there have been adduced in evidence _six_ witnesses of the IInd century:—_six_ of the IIIrd:—_fifteen_ of the IVth:—_nine_ of the Vth:—_eight_ of the VIth and VIIth,—(44 in all): while _you_ are found to rely on codices B and א (as before), supported by a single _obiter dictum_ of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about _the whole body of the Copies_: nothing about _universal, immemorial, Liturgical use_. Do you seriously imagine that the testimony on your side is “decidedly preponderating”? Above all, will you venture again to exhibit our respective methods as in your pamphlet you have done? I protest solemnly that, in your pages, I recognize neither myself nor you.

Permit me to declare that I hold your disallowance of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 to be the gravest and most damaging of all the many mistakes which you and your friends have committed. “The textual facts,” (say you, speaking of the last 12 Verses,)—“have been placed before the reader, because Truth itself demanded it.” This (with Canon Cook(918)) I entirely deny. It is because “the textual facts have” NOT “been placed before the reader,” that I am offended. As usual, you present your readers with a one-sided statement,—a partial, and therefore inadmissible, exhibition of the facts,—facts which, fully stated and fairly explained, would, (as you cannot fail to be aware,) be fatal to your contention.

But, I forbear to state so much as _one_ of them. The evidence has already filled a volume.(919) Even if I were to allow that in your marginal note, “the textual facts _have been_ [fully and fairly] _placed before the reader_”—what possible pretence do you suppose they afford for severing the last 12 Verses from the rest of S. Mark, in token that they form no part of the genuine Gospel?... This, however, is only by the way. I have proved to you that it is _I_—not _you_—who rest my case on an appeal to CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY: and this is the only thing I am concerned just now to establish.

I proceed to contribute something to the Textual Criticism of a famous place in S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy,—on which you have challenged me to a trial of strength.

[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

_A Dissertation._

In conclusion, you insist on ripping up the discussion concerning 1 Tim. iii. 16. I had already devoted eight pages to this subject.(920) You reply in twelve.(921) That I may not be thought wanting in courtesy, the present rejoinder shall extend to seventy-six. I propose, without repeating myself, to follow you over the ground you have re-opened. But it will be convenient that I should define at the outset what is precisely the point in dispute between you and me. I presume it to be undeniably _this_:—That whereas the Easterns from time immemorial, (and we with them, since Tyndale in 1534 gave us our English Version of the N. T.,) have read the place thus:—(I set the words down in plain English, because the issue admits of being every bit as clearly exhibited in the vernacular, as in Greek: and because I am determined that all who are at the pains to read the present DISSERTATION shall understand it also:)—Whereas, I say, we have hitherto read the place thus,

“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS:—GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, SEEN OF ANGELS, PREACHED UNTO THE GENTILES, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY:”

_You_ insist that this is a “_plain and clear error_.” You contend that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” for reading instead,

“GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT,” &C.:

Which contention of yours I hold to be demonstrably incorrect, and proceed to prove is a complete misconception.

(_A_) _Preliminary explanations and cautions._

But English readers will require to have it explained to them at the outset, that inasmuch as ΘΕΟΣ (GOD) is invariably written _ΘΣ_ in manuscripts, the only difference between the word “GOD” and the word “_who_” (ΟΣ) consists of two horizontal strokes,—one, which distinguishes Θ from Ο; and another similar stroke (above the letters ΘΣ) which indicates that a word has been contracted. And further, that it was the custom to trace these two horizontal lines so wondrous faintly that they sometimes actually elude observation. Throughout cod. A, in fact, the letter Θ is often scarcely distinguishable from the letter Ο.

It requires also to be explained for the benefit of the same English reader,—(and it will do learned readers no harm to be reminded,)—that “_mystery_” (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, _cannot_ be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὅς),—“_who_.” Such an expression is abhorrent alike to Grammar and to Logic,—is intolerable, in Greek as in English. By consequence, ὅς (“_who_”) is found to have been early exchanged for ὅ (“_which_”). From a copy so depraved, the Latin Version was executed in the second century. Accordingly, every known copy or quotation(922) of _the Latin_ exhibits “quod.” _Greek_ authorities for this reading (ὅ) are few enough. They have been specified already, viz. at page 100. And with this brief statement, the reading in question might have been dismissed, seeing that it has found no patron since Griesbach declared against it. It was however very hotly contended for during the last century,—Sir Isaac Newton and Wetstein being its most strenuous advocates; and it would be unfair entirely to lose sight of it now.

The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are,—Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη (“GOD _was manifested_”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὅς (“_the mystery of godliness, who_”), on the other. _These_ are the two readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate. For I request that it may be loyally admitted at the outset,—(though it has been conveniently overlooked by the Critics whom _you_ follow,)—that the expression ὂς ἐφανερώθη in Patristic quotations, _unless it be immediately preceded by_ the word μυστήριον, is nothing to the purpose; at all events, does not prove the thing which _you_ are bent on proving. English readers will see this at a glance. An Anglican divine,—with reference to 1 Timothy iii. 16,—may surely speak of our SAVIOUR as One “_who_ was manifested in the flesh,”—without risk of being straightway suspected of employing a copy of the English Version which exhibits “_the mystery of godliness who_.” “Ex hujusmodi locis” (as Matthæi truly remarks) “nemo, nisi mente captus, in contextu sacro probabit ὅς.”(923)

When Epiphanius therefore,—_professing to transcribe_(924) from an earlier treatise of his own(925) where ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_,(926) writes (if he really does write) ὂς ἐφανερώθη,(927)—we are not at liberty to infer therefrom that Epiphanius is opposed to the reading Θεός.—Still less is it lawful to draw the same inference from the Latin Version of a letter of Eutherius [A.D. 431] in which the expression “_qui manifestatus est in carne_,”(928) occurs.—Least of all should we be warranted in citing Jerome as a witness for reading ὅς in this place, because (in his Commentary on Isaiah) he speaks of our SAVIOUR as One who “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.”(929)

As for reasoning thus concerning Cyril of Alexandria, it is demonstrably inadmissible: seeing that at the least on two distinct occasions, this Father exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. I am not unaware that in a certain place, apostrophizing the Docetæ, he says,—“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor indeed the _great mystery of godliness_, that is CHRIST, who (ὅς) _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_,”(930) &c. &c. And presently, “I consider _the mystery of godliness_ to be no other thing but the Word of GOD the FATHER, who (ὅς) Himself _was manifested in the flesh_.”(931) But there is nothing whatever in this to invalidate the testimony of those other places in which Θεός actually occurs. It is logically inadmissible, I mean, to set aside the places where Cyril is found actually to write Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, because in other places he employs 1 Tim. iii. 16 less precisely; leaving it to be inferred—(which indeed is abundantly plain)—that Θεός is always his reading, from the course of his argument and from the nature of the matter in hand. But to proceed.

_(B) Bp. Ellicott invited to state the evidence for reading ὅς in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[a] _“__The state of the evidence,__”__ as declared by Bp. Ellicott._

When last the evidence for this question came before us, I introduced it by inviting a member of the Revising body (Dr. Roberts) to be spokesman on behalf of his brethren.(932) This time, I shall call upon a more distinguished, a wholly unexceptionable witness, viz. _yourself_,—who are, of course, greatly in advance of your fellow-Revisers in respect of critical attainments. The extent of your individual familiarity with the subject when (in 1870 namely) you proposed to revise the Greek Text of the N. T. for the Church of England on the _solvere-ambulando_ principle,—may I presume be lawfully inferred from the following annotation in your “_Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles_.” I quote from the last Edition of 1869; only taking the liberty—(1) To break it up into short paragraphs: and—(2) To give _in extenso_ the proper names which you abbreviate. Thus, instead of “Theod.” (which I take leave to point out to you might mean either Theodore of Heraclea or his namesake of Mopsuestia,—either Theodotus the Gnostic or his namesake of Ancyra,) “Euthal.,” I write “Theodoret, Euthalius.” And now for the external testimony, as _you_ give it, concerning 1 Timothy iii. 16. You inform your readers that,—

“The state of the evidence is briefly as follows:—

(1) Ὅς is read with A1 [_indisputably_; after minute personal inspection; see note, p. 104.] C1 [Tischendorf _Prol. Cod. Ephraemi_, § 7, p. 39.] F G א (see below); 17, 73, 181; Syr.-Philoxenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic; also (ὅς or ὅ) Syriac, Arabic (Erpenius), Æthiopic, Armenian; Cyril, Theodorus Mopsuest., Epiphanius, Gelasius, Hieronymus _in Esaiam_ liii. 11.

(2) ὅ, with D1 (Claromontanus), Vulgate; nearly all Latin Fathers.

(3) Θεός, with D3 K L; nearly all MSS.; Arabic (Polyglott), Slavonic; Didymus, Chrysostom (? see Tregelles, p. 227 note), Theodoret, Euthalius, Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius,—Ignatius _Ephes_. 29, (but very doubtful). A hand of the 12th century has prefixed θε to ος, the reading of א; see Tischendorf _edit. major_, Plate xvii. of Scrivener’s Collation of א, facsimile (13).

On reviewing this evidence, as not only the most important uncial MSS., but _all_ the Versions older than the 7th century are distinctly in favour of a _relative_,—as ὅ seems only a Latinizing variation of ὅς,—and lastly, as ὅς is the more difficult, though really the more intelligible, reading (Hofmann, _Schriftb._ Vol. I. p. 143), and on every reason more likely to have been changed into Θεός (Macedonius is actually said to have been expelled for making the change, _Liberati Diaconi Breviarium_ cap. 19) than _vice versâ_, we unhesitatingly decide in favour of ὅς.”—(_Pastoral Epistles_, ed. 1869, pp. 51-2.)

Such then is your own statement of the evidence on this subject. I proceed to demonstrate to you that you are completely mistaken:—mistaken as to what you say about ὅς,—mistaken as to ὅ,—mistaken as to Θεός:—mistaken in respect of Codices,—mistaken in respect of Versions,—mistaken in respect of Fathers. Your slipshod, inaccurate statements, (_all_ obtained at second-hand,) will occasion me, I foresee, a vast deal of trouble; but I am determined, now at last, if the thing be possible, to set this question at rest. And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I propose to myself is to _prove_—beyond the possibility of denial—that the evidence for Θεός (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) _vastly preponderates over the evidence for either_ ὅς _or_ ὅ. It will be for _you_, afterwards, to come forward and prove that, on the contrary, Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_:” _so_ plain and _so_ clear that you and your fellow-Revisers felt yourselves constrained to thrust it out from the place it has confessedly occupied in the New Testament for at least 1530 years.

You are further reminded, my lord Bishop, that unless you do this, you will be considered by the whole Church to have dealt unfaithfully with the Word of GOD. For, (as I shall remind you in the sequel,) it is yourself who have invited and provoked this enquiry. You devote twelve pages to it (pp. 64 to 76),—“compelled to do so by the Reviewer.” “Moreover” (you announce) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If he is right all other Critics are wrong,” &c., &c., &c.—Permit me to remind you of the warning—“Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”

[b] _Testimony of the __MANUSCRIPTS__ concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16: _and first as to the testimony of __CODEX_ A.

You begin then with the _Manuscript_ evidence; and you venture to assert that ΟΣ is “indisputably” the reading of Codex A. I am at a loss to understand how a “professed Critic,”—(who must be presumed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and who is a lover of Truth,)—can permit himself to make such an assertion. Your certainty is based, you say, on “minute personal inspection.” In other words, you are so good as to explain that you once tried a coarse experiment,(933) by which you succeeded in convincing yourself that the suspected diameter of the Ο is exactly coincident with the sagitta of an _epsilon_ (Ε) which happens to stand _on the back of the page_. But do you not see that unless you start with _this_ for your major premiss,—“_Theta_ cannot exist on one side of a page if _epsilon_ stands immediately behind it on the other side,”—your experiment is _nihil ad rem_, and proves absolutely nothing?

Your “inspection” happens however to be _inaccurate_ besides. You performed your experiment unskilfully. A man need only hold up the leaf to the light on a very brilliant day,—as Tregelles, Scrivener, and many besides (including your present correspondent) have done,—to be aware that the sagitta of the _epsilon_ on fol. 145_b_ does not cover much more than a third of the area of the _theta_ on fol. 145_a_. Dr. Scrivener further points out that it cuts the circle _too __ high_ to have been reasonably mistaken by a careful observer for the diameter of the _theta_ (Θ). The experiment which you describe with such circumstantial gravity was simply nugatory therefore.

How is it, my lord Bishop, that you do not perceive that the way to ascertain the reading of Codex A at 1 Tim. iii. 16, is,—(1) To investigate _not_ what is found at _the back_ of the leaf, but what is written on _the front_ of it? and (2), Not so much to enquire what can be deciphered of the original writing by the aid of a powerful lens _now_, as to ascertain what was apparent to the eye of competent observers when the Codex was first brought into this country, viz. 250 years ago? That Patrick Young, the first custodian and collator of the Codex [1628-1652], read _ΘΣ_, is certain.—Young communicated the “various Readings” of A to Abp. Ussher:—and the latter, prior to 1653, communicated them to Hammond, who clearly knew nothing of ΟΣ.—It is plain that _ΘΣ_ was the reading seen by Huish—when he sent his collation of the Codex (made, according to Bentley, with great exactness,(934)) to Brian Walton, who published the fifth volume of his Polyglott in 1657.—Bp. Pearson, who was very curious in such matters, says “we find not ὅς _in any copy_,”—a sufficient proof how _he_ read the place in 1659.—Bp. Fell, who published an edition of the N. T. in 1675, certainly considered _ΘΣ_ the reading of Cod. A.—Mill, who was at work on the Text of the N. T. from 1677 to 1707, expressly declares that he saw the remains of _ΘΣ_ in this place.(935) Bentley, who had himself (1716) collated the MS. with the utmost accuracy (“_accuratissime ipse contuli_”), knew nothing of any other reading.—Emphatic testimony on the subject is borne by Wotton in 1718:—“There can be no doubt” (he says) “that this MS. always exhibited _ΘΣ_. Of this, _any one may easily convince himself who will be at the pains to examine the place with attention_.”(936)—Two years earlier,—(we have it on the testimony of Mr. John Creyk, of S. John’s Coll., Cambridge,)—“the old line in the letter θ was plainly to be seen.”(937)—It was “much about the same time,” also, (viz. about 1716) that Wetstein acknowledged to the Rev. John Kippax,—“who took it down in writing from his own mouth,—that though the middle stroke of the θ has been evidently retouched, yet the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the θ is discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector.”(938)—And Berriman himself, (who delivered a course of Lectures on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in 1737-8,) attests emphatically that he had seen it also. “_If therefore_” (he adds) “_at any time hereafter the old line should become altogether undiscoverable, there will never be just cause to doubt but that the genuine, and original reading of the MS. was_ _ΘΣ_: and that the new strokes, added at the top and in the middle by the corrector were not designed to corrupt and falsify, but to preserve and perpetuate the true reading, which was in danger of being lost by the decay of Time.”(939)—Those memorable words (which I respectfully commend to your notice) were written in A.D. 1741. How _you_ (A.D. 1882), after surveying all this accumulated and consistent testimony (borne A.D. 1628 to A.D. 1741) by eye-witnesses as competent to observe a fact of this kind as yourself; and fully as deserving of credit, when they solemnly declare what they have seen:—how _you_, I say, after a survey of this evidence, can gravely sit down and inform the world that “_there is no sufficient evidence that there was ever a time when this reading was patent as the reading which came from the original scribe_” (p. 72):—_this_ passes my comprehension.—It shall only be added that Bengel, who was a very careful enquirer, had already cited the Codex Alexandrinus as a witness for Θεός in 1734:(940)—and that Woide, the learned and conscientious editor of the Codex, declares that so late as 1765 he had seen traces of the θ which twenty years later (viz. in 1785) were visible to him no longer.(941)

That Wetstein subsequently changed his mind, I am not unaware. He was one of those miserable men whose visual organs return a false report to their possessor whenever they are shown a text which witnesses inconveniently to the GOD-head of JESUS CHRIST.(942) I know too that Griesbach in 1785 announced himself of Wetstein’s opinion. It is suggestive however that ten years before, (N. T. ed. 1775,) he had rested the fact _not_ on the testimony borne by the MS. itself, but on “_the consent of Versions, Copies, and Fathers_ which exhibit the Alexandrian Recension.”(943)—Since Griesbach’s time, Davidson, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Ellicott have announced their opinion that _ΘΣ_ was never written at 1 Tim. iii. 16: confessedly only because _ΘΣ_ is to them invisible _one hundred years after_ _ΘΣ_ _has disappeared from sight_. The fact remains for all _that_, that the original reading of A is attested so amply, that no sincere lover of Truth can ever hereafter pretend to doubt it. “Omnia testimonia,” (my lord Bishop,) “omnemque historicam veritatem in suspicionem adducere non licet; nec mirum est nos ea nunc non discernere, quæ, antequam nos Codicem vidissemus, evanuerant.”(944)

The sum of the matter, (as I pointed out to you on a former occasion,(945)) is this,—That it is too late by 150 years to contend on the negative side of this question. Nay, a famous living Critic (long may he live!) assures us that when his eyes were 20 years younger (Feb. 7, 1861) he actually discerned, _still lingering_, a faint trace of the diameter of the Θ which Berriman in 1741 had seen so plainly. “I have examined Codex A at least twenty times within as many years” (wrote Prebendary Scrivener in 1874(946)), “and ... seeing (as every one must) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced that it reads _ΘΣ_”.... For _you_ to assert, in reply to all this mass of positive evidence, that the reading is “indisputably” ΟΣ,—and to contend that what makes this indisputable, is the fact that behind part of the _theta_ (Θ), [but too high to mislead a skilful observer,] an _epsilon_ stands on the reverse side of the page;—strikes me as bordering inconveniently on the ridiculous. If _this_ be your notion of what does constitute “sufficient evidence,” well may the testimony of so many _testes oculati_ seem to you to lack sufficiency. Your notions on these subjects are, I should think, peculiar to yourself. You even fail to see that your statement (in Scrivener’s words) is “_not relevant to the point at issue._”(947) The plain fact concerning cod. A is _this_:—That at 1 Tim. iii. 16, two delicate horizontal strokes in _ΘΣ_ which were thoroughly patent in 1628,—which could be seen plainly down to 1737,—and which were discernible by an expert (Dr. Woide) so late as A.D. 1765,(948)—have for the last hundred years entirely disappeared; which is precisely what Berriman (in 1741) predicted would be the case. Moreover, he solemnly warned men against drawing from this circumstance the mistaken inference which _you_, my lord Bishop, nevertheless _insist_ on drawing, and representing as an “indisputable” fact.

I have treated so largely of the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not because I consider the testimony of a solitary copy, whether uncial or cursive, a matter of much importance,—certainly not the testimony of Codex A, which (in defiance of every other authority extant) exhibits “_the body of _GOD” in S. John xix. 40:—but because _you_ insist that A is a witness on your side: whereas it is demonstrable, (and I claim to have demonstrated,) that you cannot honestly do so; and (I trust) you will never do so any more.

[c] _Testimony of_ CODICES א _and_ C _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

That א reads ΟΣ is admitted.—Not so Codex C, which the excessive application of chemicals has rendered no longer decipherable in this place. Tischendorf (of course) insists, that the original reading was ΟΣ.(949) Wetstein and Griesbach (just as we should expect,) avow the same opinion,—Woide, Mill, Weber and Parquoi being just as confident that the original reading was _ΘΣ_. As in the case of cod. A, it is too late by full 100 years to re-open this question. Observable it is that the witnesses yield contradictory evidence. Wetstein, writing 150 years ago, before the original writing had become so greatly defaced,—(and Wetstein, inasmuch as he collated the MS. for Bentley [1716], must have been thoroughly familiar with its contents,)—only “_thought_” that he read ΟΣ; “because the delicate horizontal stroke which makes Θ out of Ο,” was to him “_not apparent_.”(950) Woide on the contrary was convinced that _ΘΣ_ had been written by the first hand: “for” (said he) “though there _exists no vestige_ of the delicate stroke which out of Ο makes Θ, _the stroke written above the letters is by the first hand_.” What however to Wetstein and to Woide was not apparent, was visible enough to Weber, Wetstein’s contemporary. And Tischendorf, so late as 1843, expressed his astonishment that the stroke in question had hitherto escaped the eyes of every one; “_having been repeatedly seen by himself_.”(951) He attributes it, (just as we should expect) to a corrector of the MS.; partly, because of _its colour_, (“_subnigra_”); partly, because of _its inclining upwards to the right_. And yet, _who_ sees not that an argument derived from _the colour_ of a line which is already well-nigh invisible, must needs be in a high degree precarious? while Scrivener aptly points out that the cross line in Θ,—the ninth letter further on, (which has never been questioned,)—_also_ “ascends towards the right.” The hostile evidence collapses therefore. In the meantime, what at least is certain is, that the subscribed musical notation indicates that _a thousand years ago, a word of two syllables_ was read here. From a review of all of which, it is clear that the utmost which can be pretended is that some degree of uncertainty attaches to the testimony of cod. C. Yet, _why_ such a plea should be either set up or allowed, I really see not—except indeed by men who have made up their minds beforehand that ΟΣ _shall be_ the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Let the sign of uncertainty however follow the notation of C for this text, if you will. That cod. C is an indubitable witness for ΟΣ, I venture at least to think that no fair person will ever any more pretend.

[d] _Testimony of_ CODICES F _and_ G _of S. Paul, concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

The next dispute is about the reading of the two IXth-century codices, F and G,—concerning which I propose to trouble you with a few words in addition to what has been already offered on this subject at pp. 100-1: the rather, because you have yourself devoted one entire page of your pamphlet to the testimony yielded by these two codices; and because you therein have recourse to what (if it proceeded from any one but a Bishop,) I should designate the _insolent_ method of trying to put me down by authority,—instead of seeking to convince me of my error by producing some good reasons for your opinion. You seem to think it enough to hurl Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and (cruellest of all) my friend Scrivener, at my head. Permit me to point out that this, _as an argument_, is the feeblest to which a Critic can have recourse. He shouts so lustily for help only because he is unable to take care of himself.

F and G then are confessedly independent copies of one and the same archetype: and “both F and G” (you say) “exhibit _ΟΣ_.”(952) Be it so. The question arises,—What does the stroke above the _ΟΣ_ signify? I venture to believe that these two codices represent a copy which originally exhibited _ΘΣ_, but from which the diameter of the Θ had disappeared—(as very often is the case in codex A)—through tract of time. The effect of this would be that F and G are in reality witnesses for Θεός. Not so, you say. _That_ slanting stroke represents the aspirate, and proves that these two codices are witnesses for ὅς.(953) Let us look a little more closely into this matter.

Here are two documents, of which it has been said that they “were separately derived from some early codex, in which there was probably no interval between the words.”(954) They were _not immediately_ derived from such a codex, I remark: it being quite incredible that two independent copyists could have hit on the same extravagantly absurd way of dividing the uncial letters.(955) The common archetype which both employed must have been the work of a late Western scribe every bit as licentious and as unacquainted with Greek as themselves.(956) _That_ archetype however may very well have been obtained from a primitive codex of the kind first supposed, in which the words were written continuously, as in codex B. Such Manuscripts were furnished with neither breathings nor accents: accordingly, “of the ordinary breathings or accents there are no traces”(957) in either F or G.

But then, cod. F occasionally,—G much oftener,—exhibits a little straight stroke, nearly horizontal, over the initial vowel of certain words. Some have supposed that this was designed to represent the aspirate: but it is not so. The proof is, that it is found _consistently_ introduced over the same vowels _in the interlinear Latin_. Thus, the Latin preposition “a” _always_ has the slanting stroke above it:(958) and the Latin interjection “o” is furnished with the same appendage,—alike in the Gospels and in the Epistles.(959) This observation evacuates the supposed significance of the few instances where ἃ is written _Α_:(960) as well as of the much fewer places where ὁ or ὃ are written _Ο_:(961) especially when account is taken of the many hundred occasions, (often in rapid succession,) when nothing at all is to be seen above the “ο.”(962) As for the fact that ἵνα is always written _Ι_ΝΑ (or ΪΝΑ),—let it only be noted that besides ιδωμεν, ιχθυς, ισχυρος, &c., Ιακωβος, Ιωαννης, Ιουδας, &c., (which are all distinguished in the same way,)—_Latin words also beginning with an_ “I” are similarly adorned,—and we become convinced that the little stroke in question is to be explained on some entirely different principle. At last, we discover (from the example of “sī,” “sīc,” “etsī,” “servītus,” “saeculīs,” “idolīs,” &c.) that the supposed sign of the rough breathing _is nothing else but an ancient substitute for the modern dot over the _“I.”—We may now return to the case actually before us.

It has been pointed out that the line above the ΟΣ in both F and G “is not horizontal, but rises a little towards the right.” I beg to call attention to the fact that there are 38 instances of the slight super-imposed “line” here spoken of, in the page of cod. F where the reading under discussion appears: 7 in the Greek, 31 in the Latin. In the corresponding page of cod. G, the instances are 44: 8 in the Greek, 36 in the Latin.(963) These short horizontal strokes (they can hardly be called _lines_) generally—not by any means always—slant upwards; and _they are invariably the sign of contraction_.

The problem before us has in this way been divested of a needless encumbrance. The suspicion that the horizontal line above the word ΟΣ may possibly represent the aspirate, has been disposed of. It has been demonstrated that throughout these two codices a horizontal line slanting upwards, set over a vowel, is either—(1) The sign of contraction; or else—(2) A clerical peculiarity. In the place before us, then, _which_ of the two is it?

_The sign of contraction_, I answer: seeing that whereas there are, in the page before us, 9 aspirated, and (including _ΟΣ_) 8 contracted Greek words, not one of those _nine_ aspirated words has _any mark at all_ above its initial letter; while every one of the _eight_ contracted words is duly furnished with the symbol of contraction. I further submit that inasmuch as ὅς is _nowhere_ else written _ΟΣ_ in either codex, it is unreasonable to assume that it is so written in this place. Now, that almost every codex in the world reads _ΘΣ_ in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—is a plain fact; and that _ΟΣ_ (in verse 16) _would be_ Θεός if the delicate horizontal stroke which distinguishes Θ from Ο, were not away,—no one denies. Surely, therefore, the only thing which remains to be enquired after, is,—Are there _any other_ such substitutions of one letter for another discoverable in these two codices? And it is notorious that instances of the phenomenon abound. The letters Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ are confused throughout.(964) And what else are ΠΕΝΟΟΥΝΤΕΣ for πενθουντες (Matth. v. 4),—ΕΚΡΙΖΩΟΗΤΙ for εκριζωθητι (Luc. xvii. 16),—ΚΑΤΑΒΗΟΙ for καταβηθι (xix. 6),—but instances of the _self-same mistake_ which (as I contend) has in this place turned _ΘΣ_ into _ΟΣ_?

My lord Bishop, I have submitted to all this painful drudgery, not, you may be sure, without a sufficient reason. _Never any more must we hear of _“breathings”_ in connexion with codices_ F _and_ G. The stroke above the ΟΣ in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has been proved to be _probably the sign of contraction_. I forbear, of course, to insist that the two codices are witnesses _on my side_. I require that you, in the same spirit of fairness, will abstain from claiming them as certainly witnessing _on yours_. The Vth-century codex C, and the IXth-century codex F-G must be regarded as equivocal in the testimony they render, and are therefore not to be reckoned to either of the contending parties.

These are many words about the two singularly corrupt IXth-century documents, concerning which so much has been written already. But I sincerely desire,—(and so I trust do you, as a Christian Bishop,)—to see the end of a controversy which those only have any right to re-open (_pace tuâ dixerim_) who have _something new to offer on the subject_: and certain it is that the bearing of F and G on this matter has never before been fully stated. I dismiss those two codices with the trite remark that they are, at all events, but one codex: and that against them are to be set K L P,—_the only uncials which remain_; for D (of “Paul”) exhibits ὅ, and the Vatican codex B no longer serves us.

[fe] _Testimony of the_ CURSIVE COPIES: _and specially of_ “Paul 17,” “73” _and_ “181,” _concerning_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,—and _only because you find that men have claimed them before you_,—Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ὅς. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these studies so long as “professed Critics” will persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another’s references, and thus appropriating one another’s blunders?

About the reading of “Paul 17,” (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.—Mindful however of President Routh’s advice to me always “to verify my references,”—concerning “Paul 73” I wrote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the “1 Thim. iii. 16 _paraphe_.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of Œcumenius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is ὅς. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into _this_ matter on some future occasion,—the MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (“Aurivillius” says nothing about it.) Let “Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of interrogation, or how you will.

About “Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as “vi. 36” in the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the “Guardian” ten years ago.(965) In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He replies,—“Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecæ tribuendo codicem sign. ‘plut. vi. n. 36.’ Nec est in præsenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in aliâ bibliothecâ apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,—who has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire controversy for himself.

_Every other known copy of S. Paul’s Epistles_, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181. But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the manuscripts is not only “important” but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom. How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of such a concord of the copies:—“From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,—That Θεός is the genuine original reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)

In the meantime, you owe me a debt of gratitude: for, in the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered _three_ specimens of the book called “_Apostolus_,” or “_Praxapostolus_” (_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ὅς in this place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our “Apost. 12”) in the French collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the discovery of the other two (to be numbered “Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page.

At Tusculum, near Rome,—(the locality which Cicero rendered illustrious, and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)—was founded early in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this day. Nilus “Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, gave the name of “Crypta Ferrata.” It became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century. Hither habitually resorted those illustrious men, Sirletus, Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,—and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself “Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptæ Ferratæ,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the society over which he presides.

In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery, the “Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness. The sum of the matter is briefly this:—There are still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,—(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other repositories,(969))—4 manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called “Praxapostolus,” which I number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective hereabouts: 5 read Θεός: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ὅς; and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478. Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a total of 22, (Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια), which also exhibit Θεός.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.

And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.

[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

“Turning to the ancient Versions” (you assert) “we find them almost unanimous against Θεός” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ὅς. If you cannot show that several ancient Versions,—besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,—are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?

(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from copies which must have exhibited μυστήριον ὅ ἐφανερώθη. The agreement of the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading “_mysterium quod_:” though some of them seem to have regarded “quod” as a conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even find “quia” substituted _for_ “quod.” Estius conjectures that “quod” _is_ a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing else but “DEUS” in the text before them. They bravely assume that the Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the expression “_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.”

(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circumstance that such a mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,—although no doubt he “professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of ancient Greek manuscripts,” (p. 69,)—on many occasions retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.

(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,—the editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,—“In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has ‘_qui manifestatus est_.’ The relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however μυστήριον is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take μυστήριον as the antecedent, and translate ‘_quod manifestatum est_.’ _No one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_—but for the existence of the various reading ὅς in the Greek, and the _possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the Greek ὅς, in so difficult a passage, _he would have turned it differently_.”(972)—The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ὅς.

(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:—“There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either Θεός or Θεοῦ before them: while their marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ὅς. They exhibit,—‘_Great is the mystery of the goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _GOD_, who-was-manifested_ (masculine) _in the flesh_.’ The marginal addition [ܗܘ before ܕܐܬܓܠܝ (or ܘܗ before ܝܠܓܬܐܕ)] makes the reference to GOD all the plainer.”(973) See more below, at p. 489.

Now this introduction of the word Θεός into the text, however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circumstance to those who would contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the circumstance which constituted the greatness of the mystery: viz. GOD INCARNATE. “May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script) “that there would be no mystery in ‘a man being manifested in the flesh’?”

The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the “Philoxenian” you call it—but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on your side,—a witness for ὅς.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness on _my_ side.

(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.

“We are content” (you say) to “refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ὅς.”(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop—(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)—we may never “be content to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, assures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, “the relative pronoun always takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative pronoun being determined by the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic ‘_pi_’ and ‘_phè_’ respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ὁ Παράκλητος ὅν, and in the expression τὸ Πνεῦμα ὅ: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, ‘_pi mustèrion phè_,’ must perforce be rendered, τὸ μυστήριον ὅ:—not, surely, ὁ μυστήριον ὅς. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar passage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ πνεῦμα or σῶμα) has gone before. _In this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever dream of writing anything else but τὸ μυστήριον ὅ.”(976) And now I trust I have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p. 69),—that “Ὅς is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.” It is supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you can cite the “Philoxenian, _Coptic and Sahidic_,”(977)—as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that GOD’S Truth is to be established.

(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,—dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that “_saei_” is to be read,—the rather, because Andreas Uppström, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that “_obscure_” reading.(979) The Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;—μέγΑΣ ... μυστήριον ... ὍΣ. (See the footnote 4 p. 452.)

I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania. “But” (he adds) “the reading is a little dubious. H. F. Massmann, in the notes to his edition,(980) at page 657, says,—‘_saei_ [qui] is altogether obliterated.’ ”—In claiming the Gothic therefore as a witness for ὅς, you will (I trust) agree with me that a single _scarcely legible copy_ of a Version is not altogether satisfactory testimony:—while certainly “_magnus_ est pietatis sacramentum, _qui_ manifestat_us_ est in corpore”—is not a rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 which you are prepared to accept.

(_h_) For the ÆTHIOPIC. Version,—Dr. Hoerning, (of the British Museum,) has at my request consulted six copies of 1 Timothy, and informs me that they present no variety of text. _The antecedent, as well as the relative, is masculine in all._ The Æthiopic must therefore be considered to favour the reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη, and to represent the same Greek text which underlies the Latin and the Peschito Versions. The Æthiopic therefore is against you.

(_i_) “The ARMENIAN Version,” (writes Dr. Malan) “from the very nature of the language, is indeterminate. There is _no grammatical distinction of genders_ in Armenian.”

(_j_) The ARABIC Version, (so Dr. Ch. Rieu(981) informs me,) exhibits,—“In _truth the mystery of this justice is great. It is that he_” (or “_it_,” for the Arabic has no distinction between masculine and neuter) “_was manifested in the body, and was justified in the spirit_” &c.—This version therefore witnesses for neither “who,” “which,” nor “GOD.”

(_k_) and (_l_). There only remain the GEORGIAN Version, which is of the VIth century,—and the SLAVONIC, which is of the IXth. Now, both of these (Dr. Malan informs me) _unequivocally witness to_ Θεός.

Thus far then for the testimony yielded by ancient MANUSCRIPTS and VERSIONS of S. Paul’s Epistles.

[_g_] _Review of the progress which has been hitherto made in the present Enquiry._

Up to this point, you must admit that wondrous little sanction has been obtained for the reading for which _you_ contend, (viz. μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη,) as the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. Undisturbed in your enjoyment of the testimony borne by Cod. א, you cannot but feel that such testimony is fully counterbalanced by the witness of Cod. A: and further, that the conjoined evidence of the HARKLEIAN, the GEORGIAN, and the SLAVONIC Versions outweighs the single evidence of the GOTHIC.

But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of S. Paul’s Epistles for reading Θεός in this place, _in the proportion of_ 125 _to_ 1? You must surely see that, (as I explained above at pp. 445-6,) such multitudinous testimony is absolutely decisive of the question before us. At p. 30 of your pamphlet, you announce it as a “lesson of primary importance, often reiterated but often forgotten, _ponderari debere testes, non numerari_.” You might have added with advantage,—“_and oftenest of all, misunderstood_.” For are you not aware that, generally speaking, “Number” _constitutes_ “Weight”? If you have discovered some “regia via” which renders the general consent of COPIES,—the general consent of VERSIONS,—the general consent of FATHERS, a consideration of secondary importance, why do you not at once communicate the precious secret to mankind, and thereby save us all a world of trouble?

You will perhaps propose to fall back on Hort’s wild theory of a “_Syrian Text_,”—executed by authority at Antioch somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350.(982) Be it so. Let that fable be argued upon as if it were a fact. And what follows? That _at a period antecedent to the date of any existing copy_ of the Epistle before us, the Church in her corporate capacity declared Θεός (not ὅς) to be the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Only one other head of Evidence (the PATRISTIC) remains to be explored; after which, we shall be able to sum up, and to conclude the present Dissertation.

[h] _Testimony of the_ FATHERS _concerning the true reading of_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16:—GREGORY OF NYSSA,—DIDYMUS,—THEODORET,—JOHN DAMASCENE,—CHRYSOSTOM,—GREGORY NAZ.,—SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH,—DIODORUS OF TARSUS.

It only remains to ascertain what the FATHERS have to say on this subject. And when we turn our eyes in this direction, we are encountered by a mass of evidence which effectually closes this discussion. You contended just now as eagerly for the Vth-century Codex A, as if its witness were a point of vital importance to you. But I am prepared to show that GREGORY OF NYSSA (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but Θεός.(983) Of his weighty testimony you appear to have been wholly unaware in 1869, for you did not even mention Gregory by name (see p. 429). Since however you now admit that his evidence is unequivocally against you, I am willing to hasten forward,—only supplying you (at foot) with the means of verifying what I have stated above concerning the testimony of this illustrious Father.

You are besides aware that DIDYMUS,(984) another illustrious witness, is against you; and that he delivers unquestionable testimony.

You are also aware that THEODORET,(985) in _four_ places, is certainly to be reckoned on the same side:

And further, that JOHN DAMASCENE(986) _twice_ adds his famous evidence to the rest,—and is also against you.

CHRYSOSTOM(987) again, whose testimony you called in question in 1869, you now admit is another of your opponents. I will not linger over his name therefore,—except to remark, that how you can witness a gathering host of ancient Fathers illustrious as these, without misgiving, passes my comprehension. Chrysostom is _three_ times a witness.

Next come two quotations from GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS,—which I observe you treat as “inconclusive.” I retain them all the same.(988) You are reminded that this most rhetorical of Fathers is seldom more precise in quoting Scripture.

And to the same century which Gregory of Nazianzus adorned, is probably to be referred,—(it cannot possibly be later than A.D. 350, though it may be a vast deal more ancient,)—THE TITLE bestowed, in the way of summary, on that portion of S. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy which is contained between chap. iii. 16 and chap. iv. 7,—viz., Περὶ ΘΕΊΑΣ ΣΑΡΚώσεως. We commonly speak of this as the seventh of the “_Euthalian_” κεφάλαια or chapters: but Euthalius himself declares that those 18 titles were “devised by a certain very wise and pious Father;”(989) and this particular title (Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως) is freely employed and discussed in Gregory of Nyssa’s treatise against Apolinaris,(990)—which latter had, in fact, made it part of the title of his own heretical treatise.(991) That the present is a very weighty attestation of the reading, ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν ΣΑΡΚΊ no one probably will deny: a memorable proof moreover that Θεός(992) must have been universally read in 1 Tim. iii. 16 throughout the century which witnessed the production of codices B and א.

SEVERUS, BP. OF ANTIOCH, you also consider a “not unambiguous” witness. I venture to point out to you that when a Father of the Church, who has been already insisting on the GODhead of CHRIST (καθ᾽ ὅ γὰρ ὑπῆρχε Θεός,) goes on to speak of Him as τὸν ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθέντα Θεόν, there is no “ambiguity” whatever about the fact that he is quoting from 1 Tim. iii. 16.(993)

And why are we only “_perhaps_” to add the testimony of DIODORUS OF TARSUS; seeing that Diodorus adduces S. Paul’s actual words (Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί), and expressly says that he finds them in _S. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy_?(994) How—may I be permitted to ask—would you have a quotation made plainer?

[i] _Bp. Ellicott as a controversialist. The case of_ EUTHALIUS.

Forgive me, my lord Bishop, if I declare that the _animus_ you display in conducting the present critical disquisition not only astonishes, but even shocks me. You seem to say,—_Non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris_. The plainest testimony you reckon doubtful, if it goes against you: an unsatisfactory quotation, if it makes for your side, you roundly declare to be “evidence” which “stands the test of examination.”(995)... “We have examined his references carefully” (you say). “Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Theodoret and John Damascene (_who died_ severally about 394, 396, 457 and 756A.D.) _seem_ unquestionably to have read Θεός.”(996) Excuse me for telling you that this is not the language of a candid enquirer after Truth. Your grudging admission of the _unequivocal_ evidence borne by these four illustrious Fathers:—your attempt to detract from the importance of their testimony by screwing down their date “to the sticking place:”—your assertion that the testimony of a fifth Father “_is not unambiguous_:”—your insinuation that the emphatic witness of a sixth may “_perhaps_” be inadmissible:—all this kind of thing is not only quite unworthy of a Bishop when he turns disputant, but effectually indisposes his opponent to receive his argumentation with that respectful deference which else would have been undoubtedly its due.

Need I remind you that men do not write their books when they are _in articulo mortis_? Didymus _died_ in A.D. 394, to be sure: but he was then 85 years of age. He was therefore born in A.D. 309, and is said to have flourished in 347. How old do you suppose were the sacred codices he had employed _till then_? See you not that such testimony as his to the Text of Scripture must in fairness be held to belong to _the first quarter of the IVth century_?—is more ancient in short (and infinitely more important) than that of any written codex with which we are acquainted?

Pressed by my “cloud of witnesses,” you seek to get rid of _them_ by insulting _me_. “We pass over” (you say) “_names brought in to swell the number, such as Euthalius_,—_for whom no reference is given_.”(997) Do you then suspect me of the baseness,—nay, do you mean seriously to impute it to me,—of introducing “names” “to swell the number” of witnesses on my side? Do you mean further to insinuate that I prudently gave no reference in the case of “Euthalius,” because I was unable to specify any place where his testimony is found?... I should really pause for an answer, but that a trifling circumstance solicits me, which, if it does not entertain the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, will certainly entertain every one else who takes the trouble to read these pages.

“Such as _Euthalius_”! You had evidently forgotten when you penned that offensive sentence, that EUTHALIUS is one of the few Fathers _adduced by yourself_(998) (but for whom you “gave no reference,”) in 1869,—when you were setting down the Patristic evidence in favour of Θεός.... This little incident is really in a high degree suggestive. Your practice has evidently been to appropriate Patristic references(999) without thought or verification,—prudently to abstain from dropping a hint how you came by them,—but to use them like dummies, for show. At the end of a few years, (naturally enough,) you entirely forget the circumstance,—and proceed vigorously to box the ears of the first unlucky Dean who comes in your way, whom you suspect of having come by his learning (such as it is) in the same slovenly manner. Forgive me for declaring (while my ears are yet tingling) that if you were even moderately acquainted with this department of Sacred Science, you would see at a glance that my Patristic references are _never_ obtained at second hand: for the sufficient reason that elsewhere they are not to be met with. But waiving this, you have made it _luce clarius_ to all the world that so late as the year 1882, to _you_ “Euthalius” was nothing else but “a name.” And this really does astonish me: for not only was he a famous Ecclesiastical personage, (a Bishop like yourself,) but his work (the date of which is A.D. 458,) is one with which no Author of a “_Critical_ Commentary” on S. Paul’s Epistles can afford to be unacquainted. Pray read what Berriman has written concerning Euthalius (pp. 217 to 222) in his admirable “_Dissertation on_ 1 _Tim._ iii. 16.” Turn also, if you please, to the _Bibliotheca_ of Gallandius (vol. x. 197-323), and you will recognize the plain fact that the _only_ reason why, in the “Quarterly Review,” “no reference is given for Euthalius,” is because the only reference possible is—1 Tim. iii. 16.

[j] _The testimony of the letter ascribed to_ DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. _Six other primitive witnesses to_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _specified_.

Then further, you absolutely take no notice of the remarkable testimony which I adduced (p. 101) from a famous Epistle purporting to have been addressed by DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. That the long and interesting composition in question(1000) was not actually the work of the great Dionysius, is inferred—(whether rightly or wrongly I am not concerned to enquire)—from the fact that the Antiochian Fathers say expressly that Dionysius did not deign to address Paul personally. But you are requested to remember that the epistle must needs have been written by _somebody_:(1001) that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη,(1002)—which is the only matter of any real importance to my argument. Its testimony is, in fact, as express and emphatic as words can make it.

And here, let me call your attention to the circumstance that there are at least SIX OTHER PRIMITIVE WITNESSES, _some_ of whom must needs have recognized the reading for which I am here contending, (viz. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,) though not one of them quotes the place _in extenso_, nor indeed refers to it in such a way as effectually to bar the door against reasonable dispute. The present is in fact just the kind of text which, from its undeniable grandeur,—its striking rhythm,—and yet more its dogmatic importance,—was sure to attract the attention of the earliest, no less than the latest of the Fathers. Accordingly, the author of the Epistle _ad Diognetum_(1003) clearly refers to it early in the IInd century; though not in a way to be helpful to us in our present enquiry. I cannot feel surprised at the circumstance.

The yet earlier references in the epistles of (1) IGNATIUS (three in number) _are_ helpful, and may not be overlooked. They are as follows:—Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου:—ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεός—εἶς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ Λόγος ἀΐδιος.(1004) It is to be wished, no doubt, that these references had been a little more full and explicit: but the very early Fathers are ever observed to quote Scripture thus partially,—allusively,—elliptically.

(2) BARNABAS has just such another allusive reference to the words in dispute, which seems to show that he must have read Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί: viz. Ἰησοῦς ... ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.(1005)—(3) HIPPOLYTUS, on two occasions, even more unequivocally refers to this reading. Once, while engaged in proving that CHRIST is GOD, he says:—Οὗτος προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη:(1006)—and again, in a very similar passage which Theodoret quotes from the same Father’s lost work on the Psalms:—Οὗτος ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη.(1007)—(4) GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it really be he,) seems also to refer directly to this place when he says (in a passage quoted by Photius(1008)),—καὶ ἔστι Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ὁ ἄσαρκος ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.—Further, (5) in the APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, we meet with the expression,—Θεὸς Κύριος ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν εν σαρκί.(1009)

And when (6) BASIL THE GREAT [A.D. 377], writing to the men of Sozopolis whose faith the Arians had assailed, remarks that such teaching “subverts the saving Dispensation of our LORD JESUS CHRIST;” and, blending Rom. xvi. 25, 26 with “the great mystery” of 1 Tim. iii. 16,—(in order to afford himself an opportunity of passing in review our SAVIOUR’S work for His Church in ancient days,)—viz. “After all these, at the end of the day, αὐτὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός:”(1010)—_who_ will deny that such an one probably found neither ὅς nor ὅ, but Θεός, in the copy before him?

I have thought it due to the enquiry I have in hand to give a distinct place to the foregoing evidence—such as it is—of Ignatius, Barnabas, Hippolytus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Basil. But I shall not _build_ upon such foundations. Let me go on with what is indisputable.

[k] _The testimony of_ CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA.

Next, for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, whom you decline to accept as a witness for Θεός. You are prepared, I trust, to submit to the logic of _facts_?

In a treatise addressed to the Empresses Arcadia and Marina, Cyril is undertaking to prove that our LORD is very and eternal GOD.(1011) His method is to establish several short theses all tending to this one object, by citing from the several books of the N. T., in turn, the principal texts which make for his purpose. Presently, (viz. at page 117,) he announces as his thesis,—“_Faith in_ CHRIST _as_ GOD;” and when he comes to 1 Timothy, _he quotes_ iii. 16 _at length_; reasons upon it, and points out that Θεὸς ἐν σαρκί is here spoken of.(1012) There can be no doubt about this quotation, which exhibits no essential variety of reading;—a quotation which Euthymius Zigabenus reproduces in his “_Panoplia_,”—and which C. F. Matthæi has with painful accuracy edited from that source.(1013)—Once more. In a newly recovered treatise of Cyril, 1 Tim. iii. 16 is again _quoted at length with_ Θεός,—followed by the remark that “our Nature was justified, by GOD _manifested in Him_.”(1014) I really see not how you would have Cyril more distinctly recognize Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί as the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1015)

You are requested to observe that in order to prevent cavil, I forbear to build on two other famous places in Cyril’s writings where the evidence for reading Θεός is about balanced by a corresponding amount of evidence which has been discovered for reading ὅς. Not but what the _context_ renders it plain that Θεός must have been Cyril’s word on both occasions. Of this let the reader himself be judge:—

(1) In a treatise, addressed to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, Cyril quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 _in extenso_.(1016) “If” (he begins)—“the Word, being GOD, could be said to inhabit Man’s nature (ἐπανθρωπῆσαι) without yet ceasing to be GOD, but remained for ever what He was before,—then, great indeed is the mystery of Godliness.”(1017) He proceeds in the same strain at much length.(1018) Next (2) the same place of Timothy is just as fully quoted in Cyril’s _Explanatio xii. capitum_: where not only the Thesis,(1019) but also the context constrains belief that Cyril wrote Θεός:—“What then means ‘was manifested in the flesh’? It means that the Word of GOD the FATHER was made flesh.... In this way therefore we say that He was both GOD and Man.... Thus” (Cyril concludes) “is He GOD and LORD of all.”(1020)

But, as aforesaid, I do not propose to rest my case on either of these passages; but on those two other places concerning which there exists no variety of tradition as to the reading. Whether the passages in which the reading is _certain_ ought not to be held to determine the reading of the passages concerning which the evidence is about evenly balanced;—whether in doubtful cases, the requirements of the context should not be allowed to turn the scale;—I forbear to enquire. I take my stand on what is clear and undeniable. On the other hand you are challenged to produce a single instance in Cyril of μυστηριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη, where the reading is not equally balanced by μυστήριον Θεός. And (as already explained) of course it makes nothing for ὅς that Cyril should sometimes say that “the mystery” here spoken of is CHRIST who “was manifested in the flesh,” &c. A man with nothing else but the A. V. of the “Textus Receptus” before him might equally well say _that_. See above, pages 427-8.

Not unaware am I of a certain brief Scholium(1021) which the Critics freely allege in proof that Cyril wrote ὅς (not Θεός), and which _as they quote it_, (viz. so mutilated as effectually to conceal its meaning,) certainly seems to be express in its testimony. But the thing is all a mistake. Rightly understood, the Scholium in question renders no testimony at all;—as I proceed to explain. The only wonder is that such critics as Bentley,(1022) Wetstein,(1023) Birch,(1024) Tischendorf,(1025) or even Tregelles,(1026) should not have seen this for themselves.

The author, (whether Photius, or some other,) is insisting on our LORD’S absolute exemption from sin, although for our sakes He became very Man. In support of this, he quotes Is. liii. 9, (or rather, 1 Pet. ii. 22)—“_Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth_.” “S. Cyril” (he proceeds) “in the 12th ch. of his Scholia says,—‘_Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit_;’ for He was in no way subject to our infirmities,” and so on. Now, every one must see at a glance that it is entirely to misapprehend the matter to suppose that it is any part of the Scholiast’s object, in what precedes, to invite attention to so irrelevant a circumstance as that Cyril began his quotation of 1 Tim. iii. 16, with ὅς instead of Θεός.(1027) As Waterland remarked to Berriman 150 years ago,(1028) the Scholiast’s one object was to show how Cyril interpreted the expression “_justified in the Spirit_.” Altogether misleading is it to quote _only the first line_, beginning at ὅς and ending at πνεύματι, as the Critics _invariably_ do. The point to which in this way prominence is exclusively given, was clearly, to the Commentator, a matter of no concern at all. He quotes from Cyril’s “_Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti_,”(1029) in preference to any other of Cyril’s writings, for a vastly different reason.(1030) And yet _this_—(viz. Cyril’s supposed substitution of ὅς for Θεός)—is, in the account of the Critics, the one thing which the Scholiast was desirous of putting on record.

In the meanwhile, on referring to the place in Cyril, we make an important discovery. The Greek of the Scholium in question being lost, we depend for our knowledge of its contents on the Latin translation of Marius Mercator, Cyril’s contemporary. And in that translation, no trace is discoverable of either ὅς or ὅ.(1031) The quotation from Timothy begins abruptly at ἐφανερώθη. The Latin is as follows:—“Divinus Paulus _magnum quidem_ ait _esse mysterium pietatis_. Et vere ita se res habet: _manifestatus est_ enim _in carne_, cum sit DEUS Verbum.”(1032) The supposed hostile evidence from this quarter proves therefore to be non-existent. I pass on.

[l] _The argument_ e silentio _considered._

The argument _e silentio_,—(of all arguments the most precarious,)—has not been neglected.—“But we cannot stop here,” you say:(1033) “Wetstein observed long ago that Cyril does not produce this text when he does produce Rom. ix. 5 in answer to the allegation which he quotes from Julian that S. Paul never employed the word Θεός of our LORD.”(1034) Well but, neither does Gregory of Nyssa produce this text when he is writing a Treatise expressly to prove the GODhead of the SON and of the HOLY GHOST. “_Grave est_,”—says Tischendorf.(1035) No, not “_grave_” at all, I answer: but whether “_grave_” or not, that _Gregory of Nyssa_ read Θεός in this place, is at least certain. As for Wetstein, you have been reminded already, that “_ubi de Divinitate_ CHRISTI _agitur, ibi profecto sui dissimilior deprehenditur_.”(1036) Examine the place in Cyril Alex. for yourself, reading steadily on from p. 327 a to p. 333 b. Better still, read—paying special attention to his Scriptural proofs—Cyril’s two Treatises “_De rectâ Fide_.”(1037) But in fact attend to the method of Athanasius, of Basil, or of whomsoever else you will;(1038) and you will speedily convince yourself that the argument _e silentio_ is next to valueless on occasions like the present.

Certain of the Critics have jumped to the conclusion that the other Cyril cannot have been acquainted with S. Mark xvi. 19 (and therefore with the “last Twelve Verses” of his Gospel), because when, in his Catechetical Lectures, he comes to the “Resurrection,” “Ascension,” and “Session at the Right Hand,”—he does not quote S. Mark xvi. 19. And yet,—(as it has been elsewhere(1039) fully shown, and in fact the reason is assigned by Cyril himself,)—this is only because, on the previous day, being Sunday, Cyril of Jerusalem had enlarged upon the Scriptural evidence for those august verities, (viz. S. Mark xvi. 19,—S. Luke xxiv. 51,—Acts i. 9); and therefore was unwilling to say over again before the same auditory what he had so recently delivered.

But indeed,—(the remark is worth making in passing,)—many of our modern Critics seem to forget that the heretics with whom Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, &c., were chiefly in conflict, did not by any means deny the Godhead of our LORD. Arians and Apolinarians alike admitted that CHRIST _was_ GOD. This, in fact, has been pointed out already. Very differently indeed would the ancient Fathers have expressed themselves, could they have imagined the calamitous use which, at the end of 1500 years, perverse wits would make of their writings,—the astonishing inferences they would propose to extract from their very silence. I may not go further into the subject in this place.

[m] _The story about_ MACEDONIUS. _His testimony._

It follows to say a few words concerning MACEDONIUS II., patriarch of Constantinople [A.D. 496-511], of whom it has been absurdly declared that he was _the inventor_ of the reading for which I contend. I pointed out on a former occasion that it would follow from that very circumstance, (as far as it is true,) that Macedonius “_is a witness for_ Θεός—_perforce_.”(1040)

Instead of either assenting to this, (which is surely a self-evident proposition!),—or else disproving it,—you are at the pains to furbish up afresh, as if it were a novelty, the stale and stupid figment propagated by Liberatus of Carthage, that Macedonius was expelled from his see by the Emperor Anastasius for falsifying 1 Timothy iii. 16. This exploded fable you preface by announcing it as “_a remarkable fact_,” that “it was the _distinct belief of Latin writers_ as early as the VIth century that the reading of this passage had been corrupted by the Greeks.”(1041) How you get your “remarkable fact,” out of your premiss,—“the distinct belief of Latin writers,” out of the indistinct rumour [“_dicitur_”] vouched for by a single individual,—I see not. But let that pass.

“The story shows” (you proceed) “that the Latins in the sixth century believed ὅς to be the reading of the older Greek manuscripts, and regarded Θεός as a false reading made out of it.” (p. 69.)—My lord Bishop, I venture to declare that the story shows nothing of the sort. The Latins in the VIth (and _every other_) century believed that—_not_ ὅς, but—ὅ, was the right reading of the Greek in this place. Their belief on this subject however has nothing whatever to do with the story before us. Liberatus was not the spokesman of “the Latins of the VIth,” (or any other bygone) “century:” but (as Bp. Pearson points out) a singularly ill-informed Archdeacon of Carthage; who, had he taken ever so little pains with the subject, would have become aware that for no such reason as he assigns was Macedonius [A.D. 511] thrust out of his bishopric. If, however, there were at least thus much of truth in the story,—namely, that one of the charges brought against Macedonius was his having corrupted Scripture, and notably his having altered ὅς into Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16;—surely, the most obvious of all inferences would be, that Θεός _was found in copies of S. Paul’s epistles put forth at Constantinople by archiepiscopal authority between_ A.D. 496 _and_ A.D. 511. To say the least,—Macedonius, by his writings or by his discourses, certainly by his influence, _must have shown himself favourable to_ Θεός (_not_ ὅς) ἐφανερώθη. Else, with what show of reason could the charge have been brought against him? “I suppose” (says our learned Dr. John Mill) “that the fable before us arose out of the fact that Macedonius, on hearing that in several MSS. of the Constantinopolitan Church the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which witnesses expressly to the Godhead of CHRIST) had been depraved, was careful that those copies should be corrected in conformity with the best exemplars.”(1042)

But, in fact, I suspect you completely misunderstand the whole matter. You speak of “_the_ story.” But pray,—_Which_ “story” do you mean? “The story” which Liberatus told in the VIth century? or the ingenious gloss which Hincmar, Abp. of Rheims, put upon it in the IXth? You _mention_ the first,—you _reason from_ the second. Either will suit me equally well. But—_una la volta, per carità!_

Hincmar, (whom the critics generally follow,) relates that Macedonius turned ΟΣ into ΘΕΟΣ (_i.e._ _ΘΣ_).(1043) _If Macedonius did, he preferred_ Θεός _to_ ὅς.... But the story which Liberatus promulgated is quite different.(1044) Let him be heard:—

“At this time, Macedonius, bp. of CP., is said to have been deposed by the emperor Anastasius on a charge of having falsified the Gospels, and notably that saying of the Apostle, ‘_Quia apparuit in carne, justificatus est in spiritu._’ He was charged with having turned the Greek monosyllable ΟΣ (_i.e._ ‘_qui_’), by the change of a single letter (Ω for Ο) into ΩΣ: _i.e._ ‘_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem._’ ”

Now, that this is a very lame story, all must see. In reciting the passage in Latin, Liberatus himself exhibits neither “_qui_,” nor “_quod_,” nor “_Deus_,”—but “QUIA _apparuit in carne_.” (The translator of Origen, by the way, does the same thing.(1045)) And yet, Liberatus straightway adds (as the effect of the change) “_ut esset Deus apparuit per carnem_:” as if that were possible, unless “_Deus_” stood in the text already! Quite plain in the meantime is it, that, according to Liberatus, ὡς was the word which Macedonius introduced into 1 Tim. iii. 16. And it is worth observing that the scribe who rendered into Greek Pope Martin I.’s fifth Letter (written on the occasion of the Lateran Council A.D. 649),—having to translate the Pope’s quotation from the Vulgate (“_quod manifestatus est_,”)—exhibits ὡς ἐφανερώθη in this place.(1046)

High time it becomes that I should offer it as my opinion that those Critics are right (Cornelius à Lapide [1614] and Cotelerius [1681]) who, reasoning from what Liberatus actually says, shrewdly infer that there must have existed codices in the time of Macedonius which exhibited ΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ in this place; and that _this_ must be the reading to which Liberatus refers.(1047) _Such codices exist still._ One, is preserved in the library of the Basilian monks at Crypta Ferrata, already spoken of at pp. 446-8: another, is at Paris. I call them respectively “Apost. 83” and “Paul 282.”(1048) This is new.

Enough of all this however. Too much in fact. I must hasten on. The entire fable, by whomsoever fabricated, has been treated with well-merited contempt by a succession of learned men ever since the days of Bp. Pearson.(1049) And although during the last century several writers of the unbelieving school (chiefly Socinians(1050)) revived and embellished the silly story, in order if possible to get rid of a text which witnesses inconveniently to the GODHEAD of CHRIST, one would have hoped that, in these enlightened days, a Christian Bishop of the same Church which the learned, pious, and judicious John Berriman adorned a century and a-half ago, would have been ashamed to rekindle the ancient strife and to swell the Socinian chorus. I shall be satisfied if I have at least convinced you that Macedonius is a witness for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[n] _The testimony of an_ ANONYMOUS _writer_ (A.D. 430),—_of_ EPIPHANIUS (A.D. 787),—_of_ THEODORUS STUDITA (A.D. 795?),—_of_ SCHOLIA,—_of_ ŒCUMENIUS,—_of_ THEOPHYLACT,—_of_ EUTHYMIUS.

The evidence of an ANONYMOUS Author who has been mistaken for Athanasius,—you pass by in silence. That this writer lived in the days when the Nestorian Controversy was raging,—namely, in the first half of the Vth century,—is at all events evident. He is therefore at least as ancient a witness for the text of Scripture as codex A itself: and Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη is clearly what he found written in this place.(1051) Why do you make such a fuss about Cod. A, and yet ignore this contemporary witness? We do not know _who wrote_ the Epistle in question,—true. Neither do we know who wrote Codex A. What _then_?

Another eminent witness for Θεός, whom also you do not condescend to notice, is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA in Sicily,—who represented Thomas, Abp. of Sardinia, at the 2nd Nicene Council, A.D. 787. A long discourse of this Ecclesiastic may be seen in the Acts of the Council, translated into Latin,—which makes his testimony so striking. But in fact his words are express,(1052) and the more valuable because they come from a region of Western Christendom from which textual utterances are rare.

A far more conspicuous writer of nearly the same date, THEODORUS STUDITA of CP, [A.D. 759-826,] is also a witness for Θεός.(1053) How does it happen, my lord Bishop, that you contend so eagerly for the testimony of codices F and G, which are but _one_ IXth-century witness after all,—and yet entirely disregard living utterances like these, of known men,—who belonged to known places,—and wrote at a known time? Is it because they witness unequivocally against you?

Several ancient SCHOLIASTS, expressing themselves diversely, deserve enumeration here, who are all witnesses for Θεός exclusively.(1054) Lastly,—

ŒCUMENIUS(1055) (A.D. 990),—THEOPHYLACT(1056) (A.D. 1077),—EUTHYMIUS(1057) (A.D. 1116),—close this enumeration. They are all three clear witnesses for reading not ὅς but Θεός.

[o] _The testimony of_ ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.

Nothing has been hitherto said concerning the Ecclesiastical usage with respect to this place of Scripture. 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in a lection consisting of nine verses (1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5), which used to be publicly read in almost all the Churches of Eastern Christendom on the Saturday before Epiphany.(1058) It was also read, in not a few Churches, on the 34th Saturday of the year.(1059) Unfortunately, the book which contains lections from S. Paul’s Epistles, (“_Apostolus_” it is technically called,) is of comparatively rare occurrence,—is often found in a mutilated condition,—and (for this and other reasons) is, as often as not, without this particular lesson.(1060) Thus, an analysis of 90 copies of the “Apostolus” (No. 1 to 90), is attended by the following result:—10 are found to have been set down in error;(1061) while 41 are declared—(sometimes, I fear, through the unskilfulness of those who profess to have examined them),—not to contain 1 Tim. iii. 16.(1062) Of 7, I have not been able to obtain tidings.(1063) Thus, there are but 32 copies of the book called “Apostolus” available for our present purpose.

But of these thirty-two, _twenty-seven_ exhibit Θεός.(1064) You will be interested to hear that _one_ rejoices in the unique reading Θεοῦ:(1065) while another Copy of the ’Apostolus’ keeps “Paul 282” in countenance by reading ὅς Θεός.(1066) In other words, “GOD” is found in 29 copies out of 32: while “who” (ὅς) is observed to survive in only 3,—and they, Western documents of suspicious character. Two of these were produced in one and the same Calabrian monastery; and they still stand, side by side, in the library of Crypta Ferrata:(1067) being exclusively in sympathy with the very suspicious Western document at Paris, already described at page 446.

ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against _you_, in respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How _you_ estimate this head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by _an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess_. In fact, ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming consideration.

And now we may at last proceed to sum up. Let me gather out the result of the foregoing fifty pages; and remind the reader briefly of the amount of external testimony producible in support of each of these rival readings:—ὅ,—ὅς—Θεός.

[I.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.

(α) The reading μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη,—(which Wetstein strove hard to bring into favour, and which was highly popular with the Socinian party down to the third quarter of the last century,)—enjoys, as we have seen, (pp. 448-53,) the weighty attestation of the Latin and of the Peschito,—of the Coptic, of the Sahidic, and of the Æthiopic Versions.

No one may presume to speak slightingly of such evidence as this. It is the oldest which can be produced for the truth of anything in the inspired Text of the New Testament; and it comes from the East as well as from the West. Yet is it, in and by itself, clearly inadequate. Two characteristics of Truth are wanting to it,—two credentials,—unfurnished with which, it cannot be so much as seriously entertained. It demands _Variety_ as well as _Largeness of attestation_. It should be able to exhibit in support of its claims the additional witness of COPIES and FATHERS. But,

(β) On the contrary, ὅ is found besides in _only one Greek Manuscript_,—viz. the VIth-century codex Claromontanus, D. And further,

(γ) _Two ancient writers_ alone bear witness to this reading, viz. GELASIUS OF CYZICUS,(1068) whose date is A.D. 476;(1069) and the UNKNOWN AUTHOR of a homily of uncertain date in the Appendix to Chrysostom(1070).... It is scarcely intelligible how, on such evidence, the Critics of the last century can have persuaded themselves (with Grotius) that μυστήριον; ὅ ἐφανερώθη is the true reading of 1 Timothy iii. 16. And yet, in order to maintain this thesis, Sir Isaac Newton descended from the starry sphere and tried his hand at Textual Criticism. Wetstein (1752) freely transferred the astronomer’s labours to his own pages, and thus gave renewed currency to an opinion which the labours of the learned Berriman (1741) had already _demonstrated_ to be untenable.

Whether THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (in his work “_de Incarnatione_”) wrote ὅς or ὅ, must remain uncertain till a sight has been obtained of his Greek together with its context. I find that he quotes 1 Tim iii. 16 at least three times:—Of the first place, there is only a Latin translation, which begins “QUOD _justificat_US _est in spiritu_.”(1071) The second place comes to us in Latin, Greek, and Syriac: but unsatisfactorily in all three:—(_a_) The Latin version introduces the quotation thus,—“Consonantia et Apostolus dicit, _Et manifeste magnum est pietatis mysterium_, QUI(1072) (or QUOD(1073)) _manifestat_US (or TUM) _est in carne, justificat_US (or TUM) _est in spiritu_:”—(_b_) The Greek, (for which we are indebted to Leontius Byzantinus, A.D. 610,) reads,—Ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι(1074)—divested of all preface.(1075) Those seven words, thus isolated from their context, are accordingly printed by Migne as _a heading_ only:—(_c_) The Syriac translation unmistakably reads, “Et Apostolus dixit, _Vere sublime est hoc mysterium_, QUOD,”—omitting τῆς εὐσεβείας.(1076) The third quotation, which is found only in Syriac,(1077) begins,—“_For truly great is the-mystery of-the-fear-of_ GOD, _who was manifested in-the-flesh and-was-justified in-the-spirit_.” This differs from the received text of the Peschito by substituting a different word for εὐσέβεια, and by employing the emphatic state “the-flesh,” “the-spirit” where the Peschito has the absolute state “flesh,” “spirit.” The two later clauses agree with the Harkleian or Philoxenian.(1078)—I find it difficult from all this to know what precisely to do with Theodore’s evidence. It has a truly oracular ambiguity; wavering between ὅ—ὅς—and even Θεός. You, I observe, (who are only acquainted with the second of the three places above cited, and but imperfectly with _that_,) do not hesitate to cut the knot by simply claiming the heretic’s authority for the reading you advocate,—viz. ὅς. I have thought it due to my readers to tell them all that is known about the evidence furnished by Theodore of Mopsuestia. At all events, the utmost which can be advanced in favour of reading μυστήριον; ὅ in 1 Timothy iii. 16, has now been freely stated. I am therefore at liberty to pass on to the next opinion.

[II.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS _in favour of reading_ μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

Remarkable it is how completely Griesbach succeeded in diverting the current of opinion with respect to the place before us, into a new channel. At first indeed (viz. in 1777) he retained Θεός in his Text, timidly printing ὅς in small type above it; and remarking,—“_Judicium de hâc lectionis varietate lectoribus liberum relinquere placuit_.” But, at the end of thirty years (viz. in 1806), waxing bolder, Griesbach substituted ὅς for Θεός,—“_ut ipsi_” (as he says) “_nobis constaremus_.” Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, under your guidance, have followed him: which is to me unaccountable,—seeing that even less authority is producible for ὅς, than for ὅ, in this place. But let the evidence for μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί be briefly recapitulated:—

(α) It consists of _a single uncial copy_, viz. the corrupt cod. א,—(for, as was fully explained above,(1079) codd. C and F-G yield uncertain testimony): and _perhaps two cursive copies_, viz. Paul 17, (the notorious “33” of the Gospels,)—and a copy at Upsala (No. 73), which is held to require further verification.(1080) To these, are to be added three other liturgical witnesses in the cursive character—being Western copies of the book called “_Apostolus_,” which have only recently come to light. Two of the codices in question are of Calabrian origin.(1081) A few words more on this subject will be found above, at pages 477 and 478.

(β) _The only Version_ which certainly witnesses in favour of ὅς, is the Gothic: which, (as explained at pp. 452-3) exhibits a hopelessly obscure construction, and rests on the evidence of a single copy in the Ambrosian library.

(γ) Of Patristic testimonies (to μυστήριον; ὅς ἐφανερώθη) _there exists not one_. That EPIPHANIUS [A.D. 360] _professing to transcribe_ from an early treatise of his own, in which ἐφανερώθη stands _without a nominative_, should prefix ὅς—proves nothing, as I have fully explained elsewhere.(1082)—The equivocal testimony rendered by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA [A.D. 390] is already before the reader.(1083)

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is, how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16 so feebly attested,—so almost _without_ attestation,—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. “Si,”—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—“si tam pauci ... testes ... sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; _nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium_, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius_.”(1084)

Yet _this_ is the Reading which you, my lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as “_open to reconsideration_.” You are, it seems, for introducing the _clôture_ into Textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well, on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol on _me_ for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of “the Textual Criticism of the last fifty years,”—of the Revisers,—and of yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, (which you admit is at least 1530 years old,) is the right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. “He has made” (you say) “an elaborate effort to shake conclusions _about which no professed Scholar has any doubt whatever_; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard as _still open to reconsideration_.”—“Moreover” (you proceed) “this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the Reviewer’s position. If he is right, all other Critics are wrong.”(1085)

Will you permit me, my lord Bishop, as an ordinary writer, addressing (like yourself) “ordinary readers,”—respectfully to point out that you entirely mistake the problem in hand? The Greek Text of the N. T. is not to be settled by MODERN OPINION, but by ANCIENT AUTHORITY.(1086) In this department of enquiry therefore, “_complete isolation_” is his, and _his only_, who is forsaken by COPIES, VERSIONS, FATHERS. The man who is able, on the contrary, to point to an overwhelming company of Ancient Witnesses, and is contented modestly to take up his station at their feet,—such an one can afford to disregard “_The Textual Criticism of the last fifty years_,” if it presumes to contradict _their_ plain decrees; can even afford to smile at the confidence of “professed Scholars” and “Critics,” if they are so ill advised as to set themselves in battle array against that host of ancient men.

To say therefore of such an one, (as _you_ now say of _me_,) “If he is right, all other Critics are wrong,”—is to present an irrelevant issue, and to perplex a plain question. The business of Textual Criticism (as you state at page 28 of your pamphlet) is nothing else but to ascertain “_the consentient testimony of the most ancient Authorities_.” The office of the Textual Critic is none other but to interpret rightly _the solemn verdict of Antiquity_. Do _I_ then interpret that verdict rightly,—or do I not? The whole question resolves itself into _that_! If I do _not_,—pray show me wherein I have mistaken the facts of the case. But if I _do_,—why do you not come over instantly to my side? “_Since_ he is right,” (I shall expect to hear you say,) “it stands to reason that the ‘professed Critics’ whom he has been combating,—myself among the number,—must be wrong.”... I am, you see, loyally accepting the logical issue you have yourself raised. I do but seek to reconcile your dilemma with the actual facts of the problem.

And now, will you listen while I state the grounds on which I am convinced that your substitution of ὅς for Θεός in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is nothing else but a calamitous perversion of the Truth? May I be allowed at least to exhibit, in the same summary way as before, the evidence for reading in this place neither ὅ nor ὅς,—but Θεός?

[III.] _Sum of the Evidence of_ VERSIONS, COPIES, FATHERS, _in favour of reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii 16.

Entirely different,—in respect of variety, of quantity and of quality,—from what has gone before, is the witness of Antiquity to the Received Text of 1 Timothy iii. 16: viz. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ΘΕῸΣ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ.τ.λ.... I proceed to rehearse it in outline, having already dwelt in detail upon so much of it as has been made the subject of controversy.(1087) The reader is fully aware(1088) that I do not propose to make argumentative use of the first six names in the ensuing enumeration. To those names, [enclosed within square brackets,] I forbear even to assign numbers; not as entertaining doubt concerning the testimony they furnish, but as resolved to build exclusively on facts which are incontrovertible. Yet is it but reasonable that the whole of the Evidence for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη should be placed before the reader: and _he_ is in my judgment a wondrous unfair disputant who can attentively survey the evidence which I thus forego, without secretly acknowledging that its combined Weight is considerable; while its Antiquity makes it a serious question whether it is not simply contrary to reason that it should be dispensed with in an enquiry like the present.

[(_a_) In the Ist century then,—it has been already shown (at page 463) that IGNATIUS (A.D. 90) probably recognized the reading before us in three places.]

[(_b_) The brief but significant testimony of BARNABAS will be found in the same page.]

[(_c_) In the IInd century,—HIPPOLYTUS [A.D. 190] (as was explained at page 463,) twice comes forward as a witness on the same side.]

[(_d_) In the IIIrd century,—GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, (if it be indeed he) has been already shown (at page 463) probably to testify to the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη.]

[(_e_) To the same century is referred the work entitled CONSTITUTIONES APOSTOLICÆ: which seems also to witness to the same reading. See above, p. 463.]

[(_f_) BASIL THE GREAT also [A.D. 355], as will be found explained at page 464, must be held to witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16: though his testimony, like that of the five names which go before, being open to cavil, is not here insisted on.]—And now to get upon _terra firma_.

(1) To the IIIrd century then [A.D. 264?], belongs the Epistle ascribed to DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, (spoken of above, at pages 461-2,) in which 1 Tim. iii. 16 is distinctly quoted in the same way.

(2) In the next, (the IVth) century, unequivocal Patristic witnesses to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη abound. Foremost is DIDYMUS, who presided over the Catechetical School of Alexandria,—the teacher of Jerome and Rufinus. Born A.D. 309, and becoming early famous, he clearly witnesses to what was the reading of the first quarter of the IVth century. His testimony has been set forth at page 456.

(3) GREGORY, BISHOP OF NAZIANZUS [A.D. 355], a contemporary of Basil, in _two_ places is found to bear similar witness. See above page 457.

(4) DIODORUS, (or “Theodorus” as Photius writes his name,) the teacher of Chrysostom,—first of Antioch, afterwards the heretical BISHOP OF TARSUS in Cilicia,—is next to be cited [A.D. 370]. His testimony is given above at pages 458-9.

(5) The next is perhaps our most illustrious witness,—viz. GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA in Cappadocia [A.D. 370]. References to at least _twenty-two_ places of his writings have been already given at page 456.

(6) Scarcely less important than the last-named Father, is CHRYSOSTOM [A.D. 380], first of Antioch,—afterwards PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,—who in _three_ places witnesses plainly to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη. See above, page 457.

(7) And to this century, (not later certainly than the last half of it,) is to be referred the title of that κεφάλαιον, or chapter, of St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy which contains chap. iii. 16,—(indeed, which _begins_ with it,) viz. Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως. Very eloquently does that title witness to the fact that Θεός was the established reading of the place under discussion, before either cod. B or cod. א was produced. See above, pages 457-8.

(8) In the Vth century,—besides the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (cod. A,) concerning which so much has been said already (page 431 to page 437),—we are able to appeal for the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, to,

(9) CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, [A.D. 410,] who in _at least two_ places witnesses to it unequivocally. See above, pp. 464 to 470. So does,

(10) THEODORET, BISHOP OF CYRUS in Syria, [A.D. 420]: who, in at least _four_ places, (see above, page 456) renders unequivocal and important witness on the same side.

(11) Next, the ANONYMOUS AUTHOR claims notice [A.D. 430], whose composition is found in the Appendix to the works of Athanasius. See above, page 475.

(12) You will be anxious to see your friend EUTHALIUS, BISHOP OF SULCA, duly recognized in this enumeration. He comes next. [A.D. 458.] The discussion concerning him will be found above, at page 459 to page 461.

(13) MACEDONIUS II, PATRIARCH OF CP. [A.D. 496] must of necessity be mentioned here, as I have very fully explained at page 470 to page 474.

(14) To the VIth century belongs the GEORGIAN Version, as already noted at page 454.

(15) And hither is to be referred the testimony of SEVERUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH [A.D. 512], which has been already particularly set down at page 458.

(16) To the VIIth century [A.D. 616] belongs the HARKLEIAN (or PHILOXENIAN) Version; concerning which, see above, page 450. “That Θεός was the reading of the manuscripts from which this Version was made, is put beyond reach of doubt by the fact that in twelve of the other places where εὐσέβεια occurs,(1089) the words ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’) are found _without_ the addition of ܐܠܚܐ (or ܐܚܠܐ) (‘GOD’). It is noteworthy, that on the thirteenth occasion (1 Tim. ii. 2), where the Peschito reads ‘_fear of_ GOD,’ the Harkleian reads ‘_fear_’ only. On the other hand, the Harkleian margin of Acts iii. 12 expressly states that εὐσέβια is the Greek equivalent of ܩܦܝܕܘܐ ܕܗܬܐ (or ܐܬܗܕ ܐܘܕܝܦܩ) (‘_beauty-of-fear_’). This effectually establishes the fact that the author of the Harkleian recension found Θεός in his Greek manuscript of 1 Tim. iii. 16.”(1090)

(17) In the VIIIth century, JOHN DAMASCENE [A.D. 730] pre-eminently claims attention. He is _twice_ a witness for Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη, as was explained at page 457.

(18) Next to be mentioned is EPIPHANIUS, DEACON OF CATANA; whose memorable testimony at the 2nd Nicene Council [A.D. 787] has been set down above, at page 475. And then,

(19) THEODORUS STUDITA of CP. [A.D. 790],—concerning whom, see above, at pages 475-6.

(20), (21) _and_ (22). To the IXth century belong the three remaining uncial codices, which alike witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί:—viz. the “COD. MOSQUENSIS” (K); the “COD. ANGELICUS” (L); and the “COD. PORPHYRIANUS” (P).

(23) The SLAVONIC VERSION belongs to the same century, and exhibits the same reading.

(24) Hither also may be referred several ancient SCHOLIA which all witness to Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, as I explained at page 476.

(25) To the Xth century belongs ŒCUMENIUS [A.D. 990], who is also a witness on the same side. See page 476.

(26) To the XIth century, THEOPHYLACT [A.D. 1077], who bears express testimony to the same reading. See page 476.

(27) To the XIIth century, EUTHYMIUS [A.D. 1116], who closes the list with his approving verdict. See page 476.

And thus we reach a period when there awaits us a mass of testimony which transports us back (_per saltum_) to the Church’s palmiest days; testimony, which rightly understood, is absolutely decisive of the point now under discussion. I allude to the testimony of EVERY KNOWN COPY OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES except the three, or four, already specified, viz. D of S. Paul; א, 17, and perhaps 73. A few words on this last head of Evidence may not be without the grace of novelty even to yourself. They are supplementary to what has already been offered on the same subject from page 443 to page 446.

The copies of S. Paul’s Epistles (in cursive writing) supposed to exist in European libraries,—not including those in the monasteries of Greece and the Levant,(1091)—amount to at least 302.(1092) Out of this number, 2 are fabulous:(1093)—1 has been destroyed by fire:(1094)—and 6 have strayed into unknown localities.(1095) Add, that 37 (for various reasons) are said not to contain the verse in question;(1096) while of 2, I have been hitherto unsuccessful in obtaining any account:(1097)—and it will be seen that the sum of the available cursive copies of S. Paul’s Epistles is exactly 254.

Now, that 2 of these 254 cursive copies (viz. Paul 17 and 73)—exhibit ὅς,—you have been so eager (at pp. 71-2 of your pamphlet) to establish, that I am unwilling to do more than refer you back to pages 443, -4, -5, where a few words have been already offered in reply. Permit me, however, to submit to your consideration, as a set-off against those _two copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles which read ὅς,—the following _two-hundred and fifty-two copies_ which read Θεός.(1098) To speak with perfect accuracy,—4 of these (252) exhibit ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη;(1099)—1, ὅς Θεός;(1100)—and 247, Θεός absolutely. The numbers follow:—

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 52. 55. 56. 57. 59. 62. 63. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 74. 75. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 120. 121. 122. 123. 125. 126. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 149. 150. 151. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 188. 189. 190. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 211. 212. 213. 215. 216. 217. 218.(1101) 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 255. 256. 257. 258. 260. 262. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 272. 273. 274. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282.(1102) 283. 285. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301.

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul, rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;” declaring _this_ to be the great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH.” And lo, out of _two hundred and fifty-four_ copies of S. Paul’s Epistles no less than _two hundred and fifty-two_ are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to _Unanimity_; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,) unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive.

The copies of which we speak, (you are requested to observe,) were produced in every part of ancient Christendom,—being derived in every instance from copies older than themselves; which again were transcripts of copies older still. They have since found their way, without design or contrivance, into the libraries of every country of Europe,—where, for hundreds of years they have been jealously guarded. And,—(I repeat the question already hazarded at pp. 445-6, and now respectfully propose it to _you_, my lord Bishop; requesting you at your convenience to favour me publicly with an answer;)—For what conceivable reason can this multitude of witnesses be supposed to have entered into a wicked conspiracy to deceive mankind?

True, that no miracle has guarded the sacred Text in this, or in any other place. On the other hand, for the last 150 years, Unbelief has been carping resolutely at this grand proclamation of the Divinity of CHRIST,—in order to prove that not this, but some other thing, it must have been, which the Apostle wrote. And yet (as I have fully shown) the result of all the evidence procurable is to establish that the Apostle must be held to have written no other thing but _this_.

To the overwhelming evidence thus furnished by 252 out of 254 cursive _Copies_ of S. Paul’s Epistles,—is to be added the evidence supplied by the _Lectionaries_. It has been already explained (viz. at pp. 477-8) that out of 32 copies of the “Apostolus,” 29 concur in witnessing to Θεός. I have just (May 7th) heard of another in the Vatican.(1103) To these 30, should be added the 3 Liturgical codices referred to at pp. 448 and 474, _note_ 1. Now this is emphatically the voice of _ancient Ecclesiastical Tradition_. The numerical result of our entire enquiry, proves therefore to be briefly this:—

(I.) In 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, the reading Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, is witnessed to by 289 MANUSCRIPTS:(1104)—by 3 VERSIONS:(1105)—by upwards of 20 Greek FATHERS.(1106)

(II) The reading ὅ (in place of Θεός) is supported by a single MS. (D):—by 5 ancient VERSIONS:(1107)—by 2 late Greek FATHERS.(1108)

(III.) The reading ὅς (also in place of Θεός) is countenanced by 6 MANUSCRIPTS in all (א, Paul 17, 73: Apost. 12, 85, 86):—by _only one_ VERSION for certain (viz. the Gothic(1109)):—_not for certain by a single Greek_ FATHER.(1110)

I will not repeat the remarks I made before on a general survey of the evidence in favour of ὅς ἐφανερώθη: but I must request you to refer back to those remarks, now that we have reached the end of the entire discussion. They extend from the middle of p. 483 to the bottom of p. 485.

The unhappy Logic which, on a survey of what goes before, can first persuade itself, and then seek to persuade others, that Θεός is a “_plain and clear error_;” and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_,” in favour of reading ὅς in 1 Timothy iii. 16;—must needs be of a sort with which I neither have, nor desire to have, any acquaintance. I commend the case between you and myself to the judgment of Mankind; and trust you are able to await the common verdict with the same serene confidence as I am.

Will you excuse me if I venture, in the homely vernacular, to assure you that in your present contention you “have not a leg to stand upon”? “Moreover” (to quote from your own pamphlet [p. 76],) “_this case is of great importance as an example_.” You made deliberate choice of it in order to convict me of error. I have accepted your challenge, you see. Let the present, by all means, be regarded by the public as a trial-place,—a test of our respective methods, yours and mine. I cheerfully abide the issue,

(p) INTERNAL EVIDENCE _for reading_ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη _in_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, _absolutely overwhelming_.

In all that precedes, I have abstained from pleading the _probabilities_ of the case; and for a sufficient reason. Men’s notions of what is “probable” are observed to differ so seriously. “Facile intelligitur” (says Wetstein) “lectiones ὅς et Θεός esse interpretamenta pronominis ὅ: sed nec ὅ nec ὅς posse esse interpretamentum vocis Θεός.” Now, I should have thought that the exact reverse is as clear as the day. _What_ more obvious than that _ΘΣ_, by exhibiting indistinctly either of its delicate horizontal strokes, (and they were often so traced as to be scarcely discernible,(1111)) would become mistaken for ΟΣ? What more natural again than that the masculine relative should be forced into agreement with its neuter antecedent? Why, _the thing has actually happened_ at Coloss. i. 27; where ὍΣ ἐστι Χριστός has been altered into ὅ, only because μυστήριον is the antecedent. But waiving this, the internal evidence in favour of Θεός must surely be admitted to be overwhelming, by all save one determined that the reading _shall be_ ὅς or ὅ. I trust we are at least agreed that the maxim “_proclivi lectioni præstat ardua_,” does not enunciate so foolish a proposition as that in choosing between two or more conflicting readings, we are to prefer _that_ one which has the feeblest external attestation,—provided it be but in itself almost unintelligible?

And yet, in the present instance,—How (give me leave to ask) will you translate? To those who acquiesce in the notion that the μέγα μυστήριον τῆς εὐσεβείας means our SAVIOUR CHRIST Himself, (consider Coloss. i. 27,) it is obvious to translate “_who_:” yet how harsh, or rather how intolerable is this! I should have thought that there could be no real doubt that “_the mystery_” here spoken of must needs be that complex exhibition of Divine condescension which the Apostle proceeds to rehearse in outline: and of which the essence is that it was very and eternal GOD who was the subject of the transaction. Those who see this, and yet adopt the reading ὅς, are obliged to refer it to the remote antecedent Θεός. _You_ do not advocate this view: neither do I. For reasons of their own, Alford(1112) and Lightfoot(1113) both translate “_who_.”

Tregelles (who always shows to least advantage when a point of taste or scholarship is under discussion) proposes to render:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, (he who) was justified in the spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) was received up in glory.”(1114)

I question if his motion will find _a seconder_. You yourself lay it down magisterially that ὅς “is _not emphatic_ (‘He who,’ &c.): nor, by a _constructio ad sensum_, is it the relative to μυστήριον; but is a relative to an _omitted_ though easily recognized antecedent, viz. CHRIST.” You add that it is not improbable “that the words are quoted from some known _hymn_, or probably from some familiar _Confession of Faith_.” Accordingly, in your Commentary you venture to exhibit the words within inverted commas _as a quotation_:—“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: ‘who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit,’ ” &c.,(1115)—for which you are without warrant of any kind, and which you have no right to do. Westcott and Hort (the “chartered libertines”) are even more licentious. Acting on their own suggestion that these clauses are “a quotation from _an early Christian hymn_,” they proceed to print the conclusion of 1 Tim. iii. 16 stichometrically, as if it were a _six-line stanza_.

This notwithstanding, the Revising body _have adopted_ “He who,” as the rendering of ὅς; a mistaken rendering as it seems to me, and (I am glad to learn) to yourself also. Their translation is quite a curiosity in its way. I proceed to transcribe it:—

“He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

But this does not even pretend to be a sentence: nor do I understand what the proposed construction is. Any arrangement which results in making the six clauses last quoted part of the subject, and “great” the predicate of one long proposition,—is unworthy.—Bentley’s wild remedy testifies far more eloquently to his distress than to his aptitude for revising the text of Scripture. He suggests,—“CHRIST _was put to death_ in the flesh, justified in the spirit, ... seen _by Apostles_.”(1116)—“According to the ancient view,” (says the Rev. T. S. Green,) “the sense would be: ‘and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness [in the person of him], who [mystery notwithstanding] was manifested in the flesh, &c.’ ”(1117)... But, with submission, “the ancient view” was not this. The Latins,—calamitously shut up within the limits of their “_pietatis sacramentum, quod_,”—are found to have habitually broken away from that iron bondage, and to have discoursed of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, as being Himself the “sacramentum” spoken of. The “sacramentum,” in their view, was the incarnate WORD.(1118)—Not so the Greek Fathers. These all, without exception, understood S. Paul to say,—what Ecclesiastical Tradition hath all down the ages faithfully attested, and what to this hour the copies of his Epistles prove that he actually wrote,—viz. “_And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness_:—GOD _was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit_,” and so on. Moreover this is the view of the matter in which all the learning and all the piety of the English Church has thankfully acquiesced for the last 350 years. It has commended itself to Andrewes and Pearson, Bull and Hammond, Hall and Stillingfleet, Ussher and Beveridge, Mill and Bengel, Waterland and Berriman. The enumeration of names is easily brought down to our own times. Dr. Henderson, (the learned non-conformist commentator,) in 1830 published a volume with the following title:—

“The great mystery of godliness incontrovertible: or, Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text 1 Tim. iii. 16: containing a review of the charges brought against the passage; an examination of the various readings; and a confirmation of that in the received text on principles of general and biblical criticism.”

And,—to turn one’s eyes in quite a different direction,—“Veruntamen,” wrote venerable President Routh, at the end of a life-long critical study of Holy Writ,—(and his days were prolonged till he reached his hundredth year,)—

“Veruntamen, quidquid ex sacri textûs historia, illud vero haud certum, critici collegerunt, me tamen interna cogunt argumenta præferre lectionem Θεός, quem quidem agnoscunt veteres interpretes, Theodoretus cæterique, duabus alteris ὅς et ὅ.”(1119)

And here I bring my DISSERTATION on 1 TIM. iii. 16 to a close. It began at p. 424, and I little thought would extend to seventy-six pages. Let it be clearly understood that I rest my contention not at all on Internal, but entirely on External Evidence; although, to the best of my judgment, they are alike conclusive as to the matter in debate.—Having now incontrovertibly, as I believe, established ΘΕΌΣ as the best attested Reading of the place,—I shall conclude the present LETTER as speedily as I can.

(1) _“__Composition of the Body which is responsible for the __‘__New Greek Text.__’__ ”_

There remains, I believe, but one head of discourse into which I have not yet followed you. I allude to your “few words about the composition of the body which is responsible for the ‘New Greek Text,’ ”(1120)—which extend from the latter part of p. 29 to the beginning of p. 32 of your pamphlet. “Among the sixteen most regular attendants at your meetings,” (you say) “were to be found most of those persons who were presumably best acquainted with the subject of Textual Criticism.”(1121) And with this insinuation that you had “all the talents” with you, you seek to put me down.

But (as you truly say) “the number of living Scholars in England who have connected their names with the study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is exceedingly small.”(1122) And, “of that exceedingly small number,” you would be puzzled to name so much as _one_, besides the three you proceed to specify (viz. Dr. Scrivener, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Hort,)—who were members of the Revision company. On the other hand,—(to quote the words of the most learned of our living Prelates,)—“it is well known that there are _two opposite Schools_ of Biblical Criticism among us, _with very different opinions as to the comparative value of our Manuscripts of the Greek Testament_.”(1123) And in proof of his statement, the Bishop of Lincoln cites “on the one side”—_Drs. Westcott and Hort_; “and on the other”—_Dr. Scrivener_.

Now, let the account be read which Dr. Newth gives (and which you admit to be correct) of the extraordinary method by which the “New Greek Text” was “_settled_,”(1124) “for the most part at the First Revision,”(1125)—and it becomes plain that it was not by any means the product of the independently-formed opinions of 16 experts, (as your words imply); but resulted from the aptitude of 13 of your body to be guided by the sober counsels of Dr. Scrivener on the one hand, or to be carried away by the eager advocacy of Dr. Hort, (supported as he ever was by his respected colleague Dr. Westcott,) on the other. As Canon Cook well puts it,—“The question really is, Were the members competent to form a correct judgment?”(1126) “In most cases,” “_a __ simple majority_”(1127) determined what the text should be. But _ponderari debent testes_, my lord Bishop, _non numerari_.(1128) The vote of the joint Editors should have been reckoned practically as only _one_ vote. And whenever Dr. Scrivener and they were irreconcilably opposed, the existing Traditional Text ought to have been let alone. All pretence that it was _plainly and clearly erroneous_ was removed, when the only experts present were hopelessly divided in opinion. As for the rest of the Revising Body, inasmuch as they extemporized their opinions, they were scarcely qualified to vote at all. Certainly they were not entitled individually to an equal voice with Dr. Scrivener in determining what the text should be. Caprice or Prejudice, in short, it was, not Deliberation and Learning, which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber. A more unscientific,—to speak truly, a coarser and a clumsier way of manipulating the sacred Deposit, than that which you yourself invented, it would be impossible, in my judgment, to devise.

(2) _An Unitarian Revisionist intolerable._—_The Westminster-Abbey Scandal._

But this is not nearly all. You invite attention to the constituent elements of the Revising body, and congratulate yourself on its miscellaneous character as providing a guarantee that it has been impartial.

I frankly avow, my lord Bishop, that the challenge you thus deliberately offer, surprises me greatly. To have observed severe silence on this part of the subject, would have seemed to me your discreeter course. Moreover, had you not, in this marked way, invited attention to the component elements of the Revising body, I was prepared to give the subject the go-by. The “_New Greek Text_,” no less than the “_New __ English Version_,” must stand or fall on its own merits; and I have no wish to prejudice the discussion by importing into it foreign elements. Of this, you have had some proof already; for, (with the exception of what is offered above, in pages 6 and 7,) the subject has been, by your present correspondent, nowhere brought prominently forward.

Far be it from me, however, to decline the enquiry which you evidently court. And so, I candidly avow that it was in my account a serious breach of Church order that, on engaging in so solemn an undertaking as the Revision of the Authorized Version, a body of Divines professing to act under the authority of the Southern Convocation should spontaneously associate with themselves Ministers of various denominations,(1129)—Baptists, Congregationalists, Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and the like: and especially that a successor of the Apostles should have presided over the deliberations of this assemblage of Separatists. In my humble judgment, we shall in vain teach the sinfulness of Schism, if we show ourselves practically indifferent on the subject, and even set an example of irregularity to our flocks. My Divinity may appear unaccommodating and old-fashioned: but I am not prepared to unlearn the lessons long since got by heart in the school of Andrewes and Hooker, of Pearson and Bull, of Hammond and Sanderson, of Beveridge and Bramhall. I am much mistaken, moreover, if I may not claim the authority of a greater doctor than any of these,—I mean S. Paul,—for the fixed views I entertain on this head.

All this, however, is as nothing in comparison of the scandal occasioned by the co-optation into your body of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian Minister of S. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York. That, while engaged in the work of interpreting the everlasting Gospel, you should have knowingly and by choice associated with yourselves one who, not only openly denies the eternal Godhead of our LORD, but in a recent publication is the avowed assailant of that fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, as well as of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture itself,(1130)—filled me (and many besides myself) with astonishment and sorrow. You were respectfully memorialized on the subject;(1131) but you treated the representations which reached you with scornful indifference.

Now therefore that you re-open the question, I will not scruple publicly to repeat that it seems to me nothing else but an insult to our Divine Master and a wrong to the Church, that the most precious part of our common Christian heritage, the pure Word of GOD, should day by day, week by week, month by month, year after year, have been thus handled; for the avowed purpose of producing a Translation which should supersede our Authorized Version. That the individual in question contributed aught to your deliberations has never been pretended. On the contrary. No secret has been made of the fact that he was, (as might have been anticipated from his published writings,) the most unprofitable member of the Revising body. Why then was he at first surreptitiously elected? and why was his election afterwards stiffly maintained? The one purpose achieved by his continued presence among you was that it might be thereby made to appear that the Church of England no longer insists on Belief in the eternal Godhead of our LORD, as essential; but is prepared to surrender her claim to definite and unequivocal dogmatic teaching in respect of Faith in the Blessed TRINITY.

But even if this Unitarian had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold, (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of GOD’S Word may not be attained without the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer.

In the meantime, this same person was invited to communicate with his fellow-Revisers in Westminster-Abbey, and did accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1870, receive the Holy Communion, in Henry VII.’s Chapel, at the hands of Dean Stanley: declaring, next day, that he received the Sacrament on this occasion without “joining in reciting the Nicene Creed” and without “compromise” (as he expressed it,) of his principles as an “Unitarian.”(1132) So conspicuous a sacrilege led to a public Protest signed by some thousands of the Clergy.(1133) It also resulted, in the next ensuing Session of Convocation, in a Resolution whereby the Upper House cleared itself of complicity in the scandal.(1134)...

How a good man like you can revive the memory of these many painful incidents without anguish, is to me unintelligible. That no blessing from Him, “_sine Quo nihil validum, nihil sanctum_,” could be expected to attend an undertaking commenced under such auspices,—was but too plain. The Revision was a foredoomed thing—in the account of many besides myself—from the outset.

(3) _The probable Future of the Revision of_ 1881.

Not unaware am I that it has nevertheless been once and again confidently predicted in public Addresses, Lectures, Pamphlets, that ultimate success is in store for the Revision of 1881. I cannot but regard it as a suspicious circumstance that these vaticinations have hitherto invariably proceeded from members of the Revising body.

It would ill become such an one as myself to pretend to skill in forecasting the future. But of _this_ at least I feel certain:—that if, in an evil hour, (quod absit!), the Church of England shall ever be induced to commit herself to the adoption of the present Revision, she will by so doing expose herself to the ridicule of the rest of Christendom, as well as incur irreparable harm and loss. And such a proceeding on her part will be inexcusable, for she has been at least faithfully forewarned. Moreover, in the end, she will most certainly have to retrace her steps with sorrow and confusion.

Those persons evidently overlook the facts of the problem, who refer to what happened in the case of the Authorized Version when it originally appeared, some 270 years ago; and argue that as the Revision of 1611 at first encountered opposition, which yet it ultimately overcame, so must it fare in the end with the present Revised Version also. Those who so reason forget that the cases are essentially dissimilar.

If the difference between the Authorized Version of 1611 and the Revision of 1881 were only this.—That the latter is characterized by a mechanical, unidiomatic, and even repulsive method of rendering; which was not only unattempted, but repudiated by the Authors of the earlier work;—there would have been something to urge on behalf of the later performance. The plea of zeal for GOD’S Word,—a determination at all hazards to represent with even servile precision the _ipsissima verba_ of Evangelists and Apostles,—_this_ plea might have been plausibly put forward: and, to some extent, it must have been allowed,—although a grave diversity of opinion might reasonably have been entertained as to _what constitutes_ “accuracy” and “fidelity” of translation.

But when once it has been made plain that _the underlying Greek_ of the Revision of 1881 is an entirely new thing,—_is a manufactured article throughout_,—all must see that the contention has entirely changed its character. The question immediately arises, (and it is the _only_ question which remains to be asked,)—Were then the Authors of this “New Greek Text” _competent_ to undertake so perilous an enterprise? And when, in the words of the distinguished Chairman of the Revising body—(words quoted above, at page 369,)—“_To this question, we venture to answer very unhesitatingly in the negative_,”—What remains but, with blank astonishment, not unmingled with disgust, to close the volume? Your own ingenuous admission,—(volunteered by yourself a few days before you and your allies “proceeded to the actual details of the Revision,”)—that “_we have certainly not acquired sufficient Critical Judgment_ for any body of Revisers hopefully to undertake such a work as this,”—is decisive on the subject.

The gravity of the issue thus raised, it is impossible to over-estimate. We find ourselves at once and entirely lifted out of the region originally proposed for investigation. It is no longer a question of the degree of skill which has been exhibited in translating the title-deeds of our heavenly inheritance out of Greek into English. Those title-deeds themselves have been empirically submitted to a process which, _rightly or wrongly_, seriously affects their integrity. Not only has a fringe of most unreasonable textual mistrust been tacked on to the margin of every inspired page, (as from S. Luke x. 41 to xi. 11):—not only has many a grand doctrinal statement been evacuated of its authority, (as, by the shameful mis-statement found in the margin against S. John iii. 13,(1135) and the vile Socinian gloss which disfigures the margin of Rom. ix. 5(1136)):—but we entirely miss many a solemn utterance of the SPIRIT,—as when we are assured that verses 44 and 46 of S. Mark ix. are omitted by “_the best ancient authorities_,” (whereas, on the contrary, the MSS. referred to are _the worst_). Let the thing complained of be illustrated by a few actual examples. Only five shall be subjoined. The words in the first column represent what _you_ are pleased to designate as among “the most certain conclusions of modern Textual Criticism” (p. 78),—but what _I_ assert to be nothing else but mutilated exhibitions of the inspired Text. The second column contains the indubitable Truth of Scripture,—the words which have been read by our Fathers’ Fathers for the last 500 years, and which we propose, (GOD helping us,) to hand on unimpaired to our Children, and to our Children’s Children, for many a century to come:—

REVISED (1881). AUTHORIZED (1611). “And come, follow me.” “And come, _take up the cross and_ follow me.”(1137) “And they blindfolded “And when they had him, and asked him, blindfolded him, _they saying, Prophesy.” struck him on the face_, and asked him, saying, Prophesy.”(1138) “And there was also a “And a superscription superscription over him, also was _written_ over This is the King of the him _in letters of Greek, Jews.” and Latin, and Hebrew_, This is the King of the Jews.”(1139) “And they gave him a “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.” piece of a broiled fish, _and of an honeycomb_.”(1140)

But the next (S. Luke ix. 54-6,) is a far more serious loss:—

“ ‘Lord, wilt thou that “ ‘Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down we command fire to come from heaven, and consume down from heaven, and them?’ But he turned and consume them, _even as rebuked them. And they Elias did_?’ But he went to another village.” turned and rebuked them, _and said, _‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them’. And they went to another village.”

The unlearned reader sees at a glance that the only difference of _Translation_ here is the substitution of “bid” for “command.”—which by the way, is not only uncalled for, but is a change _for the worse_.(1141) On the other hand, how grievous an injury has been done by the mutilation of the blessed record in respect of those (3 + 5 + 7 + 4 + 24 = ) _forty-three_ (in English _fifty-seven_) undoubtedly inspired as well as most precious words,—even “ordinary Readers” are competent to discern.

I am saying that the systematic, and sometimes serious,—_always_ inexcusable,—liberties which have been taken with the Greek Text by the Revisionists of 1881, constitute a ground of offence against their work for which no pretext was afforded by the Revision of 1611. To argue therefore from what has been the fate of the one, to what is likely to be the fate of the other, is illogical. The cases are not only not parallel: they are even wholly dissimilar.

The cheapest copies of our Authorized Version at least exhibit the Word of GOD faithfully and helpfully. Could the same be said of a cheap edition of the work of the Revisionists,—destitute of headings to the Chapters, and containing no record of the extent to which the Sacred Text has undergone depravation throughout?

Let it be further recollected that the greatest Scholars and the most learned Divines of which our Church could boast, conducted the work of Revision in King James’ days; and it will be acknowledged that the promiscuous assemblage which met in the Jerusalem Chamber cannot urge any corresponding claim on public attention. _Then_, the Bishops of Lincoln of 1611 were Revisers: the Vance Smiths stood without and found fault. But in the affair of 1881, Dr. Vance Smith revises, and ventilates heresy from within:(1142) the Bp. of Lincoln stands outside, and is one of the severest Critics of the work.—Disappointed men are said to have been conspicuous among the few assailants of our “Authorized Version,”—Scholars (as Hugh Broughton) who considered themselves unjustly overlooked and excluded. But on the present occasion, among the multitude of hostile voices, there is not a single instance known of a man excluded from the deliberations of the Jerusalem Chamber, who desired to share them.

To argue therefore concerning the prospects of the Revision of 1881 from the known history of our Authorized Version of 1611, is to argue concerning things essentially dissimilar. With every advance made in the knowledge of the subject, it may be confidently predicted that there will spring up increased distrust of the Revision of 1881, and an ever increasing aversion from it.

(4) _Review of the entire subject, and of the respective positions of Bp. Ellicott and myself._

Here I lay down my pen,—glad to have completed what (because I have endeavoured to do my work _thoroughly_) has proved a very laborious task indeed. The present rejoinder to your Pamphlet covers all the ground you have yourself traversed, and will be found to have disposed of your entire contention.

I take leave to point out, in conclusion, that it places you individually in a somewhat embarrassing predicament. For you have now no alternative but to come forward and disprove my statements as well as refute my arguments: or to admit, by your silence, that you have sustained defeat in the cause of which you constituted yourself the champion. You constrained me to reduce you to this alternative when you stood forth on behalf of the Revising body, and saw fit to provoke me to a personal encounter.

But you must come provided with something vastly more formidable, remember, than denunciations,—which are but wind: and vague generalities,—which prove nothing and persuade nobody: and appeals to the authority of “Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,”—which I disallow and disregard. You must produce a counter-array of well-ascertained facts; and you must build thereupon irrefragable arguments. In other words, you must conduct your cause with learning and ability. Else, believe me, you will make the painful discovery that “the last error is worse than the first.” You had better a thousand times, even now, ingenuously admit that you made a grievous mistake when you put yourself into the hands of those ingenious theorists, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and embraced their arbitrary decrees,—than persevere in your present downward course, only to sink deeper and deeper in the mire.

(5) _Anticipated effect of the present contention on the Text of_ 1 Timothy iii. 16.

I like to believe, in the meantime, that this passage of arms has resulted in such a vindication(1143) of the traditional Reading of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16, as will effectually secure that famous place of Scripture against further molestation. _Faxit __DEUS__!_... In the margin of the Revision of 1881, I observe that you have ventured to state as follows,—

“The word GOD, in place of _He who_, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence.”

In the words of your Unitarian ally, Dr. Vance Smith,—

“The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament.... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as ‘God manifested in the flesh’ ” (p. 39).

Such remarks proceeding from such a quarter create no surprise. But, pray, my lord Bishop, of what were _you_ thinking when you permitted yourself to make the serious mis-statement which stands in the margin? You must needs have meant thereby that,—“The word _He who_ in place of GOD, on the contrary, _does_ rest on sufficient ancient evidence.” I solemnly call upon you, in the Name of Him by whose Spirit Holy Scripture was given, to prove the truth of your marginal Note of which the foregoing 70 pages are a refutation.—You add,

“Some ancient authorities read _which_.”

But why did you suppress the fact, which is undeniable, viz.: that a great many “_More_ ancient authorities” read “which” (ὅ), than read “who” (ὅς)?

(6) _The nature of this contention explained._

And yet, it was no isolated place which I was eager to establish, when at first I took up my pen. It was the general trustworthiness of the Traditional Text,—(the Text which you admit to be upwards of 1500 years old,)—which I aimed at illustrating: the essential rottenness of the foundation on which the Greek Text of the Revision of 1881 has been constructed by yourself and your fellow Revisers,—which I was determined to expose. I claim to have proved not only that your entire superstructure is tasteless and unlovely to a degree,—but also that you have reared it up on a foundation of sand. In no vaunting spirit, (GOD is my witness!), but out of sincere and sober zeal for the truth of Scripture I say it,—your work, whether you know it or not, has been so handled in the course of the present volume of 500 pages that its essential deformity must be apparent to every unprejudiced beholder. It can only be spoken of at this time of day as a shapeless ruin.

A ruin moreover it is which does not admit of being repaired or restored. And why? Because the mischief, which extends to every part of the edifice, takes its beginning, as already explained, in every part of the foundation.

And further, (to speak without a figure,) it cannot be too plainly stated that no compromise is possible between our respective methods,—yours and mine: between the NEW GERMAN system in its most aggravated and in fact intolerable form, to which you have incautiously and unconditionally given in your adhesion; and the OLD ENGLISH school of Textual Criticism, of which I humbly avow myself a disciple. Between the theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort (which you have made your own) and the method of your present Correspondent, there can be no compromise, because the two are antagonistic throughout. We have, in fact, nothing in common,—except certain documents; which _I_ insist on interpreting by the humble Inductive process: while you and your friends insist on your right of deducing your estimate of them from certain antecedent imaginations of your own,—every one of which I disallow, and some of which I am able to disprove.

Such, my lord Bishop, is your baseless imagination—(1) That the traditional Greek Text (which, without authority, you style “_The Syrian text_,”) is the result of a deliberate Recension made at Antioch, A.D. 250 and 350:(1144)—(2) That the Peschito, in like manner, is the result of a Recension made at Edessa or Nisibis about the same time:(1145)—(3) That Cureton’s is the Syriac “Vetus,” and the Peschito the Syriac “Vulgate:”(1146)—(4) That the respective ancestries of our only two IVth-century Codices, B and א, “diverged from a common parent extremely near the apostolic autographs:”(1147)—(5) That this common original enjoyed a “general immunity from substantive error;” and by consequence—(6) That B and א provide “a safe criterion of genuineness,” so that “no readings of א B can be safely rejected absolutely.”(1148)—(7) Similar wild imaginations you cherish concerning C and D,—which, together with B and א _you_ assume to be among the most trustworthy guides in existence; whereas _I_ have convinced myself, by laborious collation, that they are _the most corrupt of all_. We are thus diametrically opposed throughout. Finally,—(8) _You_ assume that you possess a power of divination which enables you to dispense with laborious processes of Induction; while I, on the contrary, insist that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the best COPIES, FATHERS, VERSIONS.(1149) There is, I am persuaded, no royal road to the attainment of Truth in this department of Knowledge. Only through the lowly portal of humility,—only by self-renouncing labour,—may we ever hope to reach the innermost shrine. _They_ do but go astray themselves and hopelessly mislead others, who first _invent their facts_, and then proceed to build thereupon their premisses.

Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort,—with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified.(1150) I repeat, (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered,) that what I assert concerning those Critics is,—_not_ that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on _no foundation at all_. My complaint is,—_not_ that they are _somewhat_ and _frequently_ mistaken; but that they are mistaken _entirely_, and that they are mistaken _throughout_. There is no possibility of approximation between _their_ mere assumptions and the results of _my_ humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only _then_ be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.

(7) _Parting Counsels._

Let me be allowed, in conclusion, to recommend to your attention and that of your friends,—(I.) “THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF S. MARK’S GOSPEL:”—(II.) THE ANGELIC HYMN on the night of the Nativity:—(III.) The text of 1 TIMOTHY iii. 16,—these three,—(in respect of which up to this hour, you and I find ourselves to be hopelessly divided,)—as convenient _Test places_. When you are prepared frankly to admit,—(I.) That there is no reason whatever for doubting the genuineness of S. MARK xvi. 9-20:(1151)—(II.) That ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία is unquestionably the Evangelical text of S. LUKE ii. 14:(1152)—and (III.) That Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is what the great Apostle must be held to have written in 1 TIMOTHY iii 16,(1153)—we shall be in good time to proceed to something else. _Until_ this happy result has been attained, it is a mere waste of time to break up fresh ground, and to extend the area of our differences.

I cannot however disguise from you the fact that such an avowal on your part will amount to an admission that “the whole fabric of Textual Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years by successive editors of the New Testament,”—Lachmann namely, Tischendorf, and Tregelles,—is worthless. Neither may the inevitable consequence of this admission be concealed: viz. that your own work as Revisionists has been, to speak plainly, one gigantic blunder, from end to end.

(8) _The subject dismissed._

The issue of this prolonged contention I now commend, with deep humility, to ALMIGHTY GOD. The SPIRIT OF TRUTH will, (I know,) take good care of His own masterpiece,—the Written Word. May He have compassion on my ignorance, and graciously forgive me, if, (intending nothing less,) I shall prove to have anywhere erred in my strenuous endeavour to maintain the integrity of Scripture against the rashness of an impatient and unlearned generation.

But if, (as I humbly believe and confidently hope,) my conclusions are sound throughout, then may He enable men freely to recognize the Truth; and thus, effectually avert from our Church the supreme calamity with which, for a few months in 1881, it seemed threatened; namely, of having an utterly depraved Recension of the Greek Text of the New Testament thrust upon it, as the basis of a very questionable ’Revision’ of the English.

My lord Bishop,—I have the honour to wish you respectfully farewell.

J. W. B.

DEANERY, CHICHESTER, _July, 1883_.

THE GRASS WITHERETH: THE FLOWER FADETH: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.

APPENDIX OF SACRED CODICES.

The inquiries into which I was led (January to June 1883) by my DISSERTATION in vindication of the Traditional Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, have resulted in my being made aware of the existence of a vast number of Sacred Codices which had eluded the vigilance of previous Critics.

I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging Scholz’s list. We had in fact raised the enumeration of “_Evangelia_” to 621: of “_Acts and Catholic Epistles_” to 239: of “_Paul_” to 281: of “_Apocalypse_” to 108: of “_Evangelistaria_” to 299: of the book called “_Apostolus_” to 81:—making a total of 1629.—But at the end of a protracted and somewhat laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great Continental Libraries, I am able to state that our available “_Evangelia_” amount to at least 739(1154): our “_Acts and Cath. Epp._” to 261: our “_Paul_” to 338: our “_Apoc._” to 122: our “_Evstt._” to 415(1155): our copies of the “_Apostolus_” to 128(1156): making a total of 2003. This shows an increase of _three hundred and seventy-four_.

My original intention had been to publish this enumeration of Sacred Codices in its entirety as an APPENDIX to the present volume: but finding that the third edition of Dr. Scrivener’s “Introduction” would appear some months before my own pages could possibly see the light, I eagerly communicated my discoveries to my friend. I have indeed proposed to myself no other object throughout but the advancement of the study of Textual Criticism: and it was reasonable to hope that by means of his widely circulated volume, the great enlargement which our previously ascertained stores have suddenly experienced would become more generally known to scholars. I should of course still have it in my power to reproduce here the same enumeration of Sacred Codices.

The great bulk however which the present volume has acquired, induces me to limit myself in this place to some account of those Codices which have been expressly announced and discoursed about in my Text (as at pp. 474 and 492-5). Some other occasion must be found for enlarging on the rest of my budget.

It only remains to state that for most of my recent discoveries I am indebted to the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, Prefect of the Vatican; who on being informed of the object of my solicitude, with extraordinary liberality and consideration at once set three competent young men to work in the principal libraries of Rome. To him I am further indebted for my introduction to the MS. treasures belonging to the Basilian monks of Crypta-Ferrata, the ancient Tusculum. Concerning the precious library of that monastery so much has been offered already (viz. at pp. 446-448, and again at pp. 473-4), as well as concerning its learned chief, the Hieromonachus Antonio Rocchi, that I must be content to refer my readers to those earlier parts of the present volume. I cannot however sufficiently acknowledge the patient help which the librarian of Crypta Ferrata has rendered me in the course of these researches.

For my knowledge of the sacred Codices preserved at Messina, I am indebted to the good offices and learning of Papas Filippo Matranga. In respect of those at Milan, my learned friend Dr. Ceriani has (not for the first time) been my efficient helper. M. Wescher has kindly assisted me at Paris; and Dr. C. de Boor at Berlin. It must suffice, for the rest, to refer to the Notes at foot of pp. 491-2 and 477-8.

ADDITIONAL CODICES OF S. PAUL’S EPISTLES.

282. ( = Act. 240. Apoc. 109). Paris, “Arménien 9” (_olim_ Reg. 2247). _membr._ foll. 323. This bilingual codex (Greek and Armenian) is described by the Abbé Martin in his _Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du N. T._ (1883), p. 660-1. See above, p. 474, note 1. An Italian version is added from the Cath. Epp. onwards. _Mut._ at beginning (Acts iv. 14) and end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4.)

283. ( = Act. 241). Messina P K Z (_i.e._ 127) [xii.], _chart._ foll. 224. _Mut._ begins at Acts viii. 2,—ends at Hebr. viii. 2; also a leaf is lost between foll. 90 and 91. Has ὑποθθ. and Commentary of an unknown author.

284. ( = Act. 195). Modena, ii. A. 13 [xiii.?], _Mut._ at the end.

285. ( = Act. 196), Modena, ii. Cf. 4 [xi. or xii.]. Sig. Ant. Cappelli (sub-librarian) sends me a tracing of 1 Tim. iii. 16.

286. Ambrosian library, E. 2, _inf._the Catena of Nicetas. “Textus particulatim præmittit Commentariis.”

287. Ambrosian A. 241, _inf._, “est Catena ejusdem auctoris ex initio, sed non complectitur totum opus.”

288. Ambrosian D. 541 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ Text and Catena on all S. Paul’s Epp. “Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.” It was brought from Thessaly.

289. Milan C. 295 _inf._ [x. or xi.] _membr._ with a Catena. “Textus continuatus. Catena in marginibus.”

290. ( = Evan. 622. Act. 242. Apoc. 110). Crypta Ferrata, A. α. i. [xiii. or xiv.] foll. 386: _chart._ a beautiful codex of the entire N. T. described by Rocchi, p. 1-2. Menolog. _Mut._ 1 Nov. to 16 Dec.

291. ( = Act. 243). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. i. [x.] foll. 139: in two columns,—letters almost uncial. Particularly described by Rocchi, pp. 15, 16. Zacagni used this codex when writing about Euthalius. _Mut._, beginning with the argument for 1 S. John and ending with 2 Tim.

†292. ( = Act. 244). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iii. [xi. or xii.]. _Membr._, foll. 172. in 2 columns beautifully illuminated: described by Rocchi, p. 18-9. Zacagni employed this codex while treating of Euthalius. _Menolog._

293. ( = Act. 245). Crypta Ferrata, A. β. vi. [xi.], foll. 193. _Mut._ at the end, Described by Rocchi, p. 22-3.

294. ( = Act. 246). Vat. 1208. Abbate Cozzi-Luzi confirms Berriman’s account [p. 98-9] of the splendour of this codex. It is written in gold letters, and is said to have belonged to Carlotta, Queen of Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Armenia, who died at Rome A.D. 1487, and probably gave the book to Pope Innocent VIII., whose arms are printed at the beginning. It contains effigies of S. Luke, S. James, S. Peter, S. John, S. Jude, S. Paul.

295. ( = Act 247). Palatino-Vat. 38 [xi.] _membr._ foll. 35. Berriman (p. 100) says it is of quarto size, and refers it to the IXth cent.

296. Barberini iv. 85 (_olim_ 19), dated A.D. 1324. For my knowledge of this codex I am entirely indebted to Berriman, who says that it contains “the arguments and marginal scholia written” (p. 102).

297. Barberini, vi. 13 (_olim_ 229), _membr._ [xi.] foll. 195: contains S. Paul’s 14 Epp. This codex also was known to Berriman, who relates (p. 102), that it is furnished “with the old marginal scholia.”

298. (= Act. 248), Berlin (Hamilton: No 625 in the English printed catalogue, where it is erroneously described as a “Lectionarium.”) It contains Acts, Cath. Epp. and S. Paul,—as Dr. C. de Boor informs me.

299. (= Act. 249), Berlin, 4to. 40 [xiii.]: same contents as the preceding.

300. (= Act. 250), Berlin, 4to. 43 [xi.], same contents as the preceding, but commences with the Psalms.

301. (= Act. 251), Berlin, 4to. 57 [xiv.], _chart._ Same contents as Paul 298.

302. (= Evan. 642. Act. 252.) Berlin, 8vo. 9 [xi.], probably once contained all the N. T. It now begins with S. Luke XXIV. 53, and is _mut._ after 1 Thess.

303. Milan, N. 272 _inf._ “Excerpti loci.”

304. (= Act. 253) Vat. 369 [xiv.] foll. 226, _chart._

305. Vat. 549, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 380. S. Paul’s Epistles, with Theophylact’s Commentary.

306. Vat. 550, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 290; contains Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom.

307. Vat 551, _membr._ [x.] foll. 283. A large codex, containing some of S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.

308. Vat. 552, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 155. Contains Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom.

309. Vat. 582, _membr._ [xiv.] foll. 146. S. Paul’s Epistles with Comm. of Chrysostom.

310. Vat. 646 [xiv.], foll. 250: “cum supplementis.” _Chart._ S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact and Euthymius. Pars I. et II.

311. (= Evan. 671). Vat. 647. _Chart._ foll. 338 [xv.]. S. Paul’s Epistles and the Gospels, with Theophylact’s Commentary.

312. Vat. 648, written A.D. 1232, at Jerusalem, by Simeon, “qui et Saba dicitur:” foll. 338, _chart._ S. Paul’s Epistles, with Comm. of Theophylact.

313. (= Act. 239). Vat. 652, _chart._ [xv.] foll. 105. The Acts and Epistles with Commentary. See the _Preface_ to Theophylact, ed. 1758, vol. iii. p. v.-viii., also “Acts 239” in Scrivener’s 3rd. edit. (p. 263).

314. Vat. 692, _membr._ [xii.] foll. 93, _mut._ Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, with Commentary.

315. Vat. 1222, _chart._ [xvi.] foll. 437. S. Paul’s Epp. with Theophylact’s Comm.

316. (= Act. 255). Vat. 1654, _membr._ [x. or xi.], foll. 211. Acts and Epistles of S. Paul with Chrysostom’s Comm.

317. Vat. 1656, _membr._ [xii.], foll. 182. Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom, _folio_.

318. Vat. 1659, _membr._ [xi.] foll. 444. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.

319. Vat. 1971 (Basil 10) _membr._ [x.] foll. 247. Ἐπιστολαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων σὺν τοῖς τοῦ Εὐθαλίου.

320. Vat. 2055 (Basil 94), _membr._ [x.] foll. 292. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.

321. Vat. 2065 (Basil 104), [x.] _membr._ foll. 358. Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom.

322. (= Act. 256) Vat. 2099 (Basil 138) _membr._ foll. 120 [x.]. Note that though numbered for the Acts, this code only contains ἐπιστολαὶ ιδ᾽ καὶ καθολικαὶ, σὺν ταῖς σημειώσεσι λειτουργικαῖς περὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν αἷς λεκτέαι.

323. Vat. 2180 [xv.] foll. 294, _chart._ With Comm. of Theophylact.

324. Alexand. Vat. 4 [x.] foll. 256, _membr._ “Optimæ notæ.” Romans with Comm. of Chrysostom, λογ. κβ᾽. “Fuit monasterii dicti τοῦ Περιβλέπτου.”

325. (= Evan. 698. Apoc. 117). Alexand. Vat. 6. _chart._ foll. 336 [xvi.], a large codex. The Gospels with Comm. of Nicetas: S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Theophylact: Apocalypse with an anonymous Comm.

326. Vat. Ottob. 74 [xv.] foll. 291, _chart._ Romans with Theodoret’s Comm.

327. Palatino-Vat. 10 [x.] _membr._ foll. 268. S. Paul’s Epp. with a Patristic Commentary. “Felkman adnotat.”

328. Palatino-Vat. 204 [x.] foll. 181, cum additamentis. With the interpretation of Œcumenius.

329. Palatino-Vat. 325 [x.] _membr._ foll. 163, _mut._ Inter alia adest εἰς ἐπιστ. πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὁμιλεῖαι τινες Χρυσοστόμου.

330. Palatino-Vat. 423 [xii.], partly _chart._ Codex miscell. habet ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς καὶ Θεσσαλονικεῖς περικοπὰς σὺν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ.

331. Angelic. T. 8, 6 [xii.] foll. 326. S. Paul’s Epp. with Comm. of Chrysostom.

332. (= Act. 259). Barberini iii. 36 (_olim_ 22): _membr._ foll. 328 [xi.]. Inter alia ἐπιτομαὶ κεφαλ. τῶν Πράξεων καὶ ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἁγ. ἀποστόλων.

333. (= Act. 260). Barberini iii. 10 (_olim_ 259) _chart._ foll. 296 [xiv.]. Excerpta ἐκ Πράξ. (f. 152): Ἰακώβου (f. 159): Πέτρου (f. 162): Ἰωάνν. (f. 165): Ἰούδ. (f. 166): πρὸς Ρωμ. (f. 167): πρὸς Κορ. (f. 179): πρὸς Κολ. (fol. 189): πρὸς Θεσς. (f. 193): πρὸς Τιμ. α᾽ (def. infin.).

334. Barb. V. 38 (_olim_ 30) [xi.] foll. 219, _mut._ Hebrews with Comm. of Chrysostom.

335. Vallicell. F. [xv.], _chart._ miscell. Inter alia, εἰς τὰς ἐπιστολὰς τῶν Ἀποστόλων ἐξηγήσεις τινες.

336. (= Act. 261), Casanatensis, G. 11, 6.—Note, that though numbered for “Acts,” it contains only the Catholic Epp. and those of S. Paul with a Catena.

337. Ottob. 328. [All I know as yet of this and of the next codex is that Θεός is read in both at 1 Tim. iii. 16].

338. Borg. F. vi. 16. [See note on the preceding.]

ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE “APOSTOLUS.”

82. Messina ΠΓ (_i.e._ 83) foll. 331, 8vo. Perfect.

83. Crypta Ferrata, A. β. iv. [x.] _membr._ foll. 139, Praxapostolus. Rocchi gives an interesting account of this codex, pp. 19-20. It seems to be an adaptation of the liturgical use of C P. to the requirements of the Basilian monks in the Calabrian Church. This particular codex is _mut._ in the beginning and at the end. (For its extraordinary reading at 1 Tim. iii. 16, see above, p. 473-4).

84. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. v. [xi.], _membr._ foll. 245, a most beautiful codex. Rocchi describes it carefully, pp. 20-2. At the end of the Menology is some liturgical matter. “Patet Menologium esse merum ἀπόγραφον alicujus Menologii CPtani, in usum. si velis, forte redacti Ecclesiae Rossanensis in Calabria.” A suggestive remark follows that from this source “rituum rubricarumque magnum segetem colligi posse, nec non Commemorationem _Sanctorum_ mirum sane numerum, quas in aliis Menologiis vix invenies.”

85. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. vii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 64, Praxapostolus. This codex and the next exhibit ὅς ἐφανερώθη in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Menology is _mut._ after 17 Dec.

86. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. viii. [xii. or xiii.] fragments of foll. 127. _membr._ Praxapostolus. (See the preceding.) Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 23-4.

87. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. ix. [xii.], foll. 104, _membr._ Praxapostolus. Interestingly described by Rocchi, p. 24-5. The Menology is unfortunately defective after 9th November.

88. Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. x. [xiii.?] _membr._ 16 fragmentary leaves. “Vere lamentanda est quæ huic Eclogadio calamitas evenit” (says the learned Rocchi, p. 25), “quoniam ex ejus residuis, multa Sanctorum nomina reperies quæ alibi frustra quæsieris.”

89. Crypta Ferrata Α. β. xi. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 291, _mut._, written in two columns. The Menology is defective after 12 June, and elsewhere. Described by Rocchi, p. 26.

90. (= Evst. 322) Crypta Ferrata, Α. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 259, with many excerpts from the Fathers, fully described by Rocchi, p. 17-8, fragmentary and imperfect.

91. (= Evst. 323) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ii. [x.] _membr._ foll. 155, a singularly full lectionary. Described by Rocchi, p. 38-40.

92. (= Evst. 325) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. iv. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 257, a beautiful and interesting codex, “Calligrapho Joanne Rossanensi Hieromonacho Cryptæferratæ”: fully described by Rocchi, p. 40-3. Like many other in the same collection, it is a palimpsest.

93. (= Evst. 327) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. vi. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 37, _mut._ at beginning and end, and otherwise much injured: described by Rocchi, p. 45-6.

94. (= Evst. 328) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. ix. [xii.], _membr._ foll. 117, _mut._ at beginning and end.

95. (= Evst. 334) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xx. [xii.] _membr._ foll. 21, a mere fragment. (Rocchi, p. 51.)

96. (= Evst. 337) Crypta Ferrata, Α. δ. xxiv. A collection of fragments. (Rocchi, p. 53.)

97. (= Evst. 339) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ii. [xi.] _membr._ foll. 151, elaborately described by Rocchi, p. 244-9. This codex once belonged to Thomasius.

98. (= Evst. 340) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β iii. [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 201. Goar used this codex: described by Rocchi, p. 249-51.

99. (= Evst. 341) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. vi. [xiii. or xiv.], _membr._ foll. 101: described by Rocchi, p. 255-7.

100. (= Evst. 344) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. ix. [xvi.], _membr._ foll. 95, _mut._ at beginning and end, and much injured.

101. (= Evst. 346) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xii. [xiv.], _membr._ foll. 98, _mut._ at beginning and end.

102. (= Evst. 347) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xiii. [xiii.] _membr._ foll. 188: written by John of Rossano, Hieromonachus of Cryptaferrata, described by Rocchi, p. 265-7.

103. (= Evst. 349) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xv. [xi. to xiv.] _membr._ foll. 41.—Described p. 268-9.

104. (= Evst. 350) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xvii. [xvi.]. _Chart._ foll. 269. Described, p. 269-70.

105. (= Evst. 351), Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xviii. [xiv.] _chart._ foll. 54.

106. (= Evst. 352) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xix. [xvi.] _chart._, foll. 195, described p. 271.

107. (= Evst. 353) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiii. [xvii.], _membr._ foll. 75,—the work of Basilius Falasca, Hieromonachus, and head of the monastery, A.D. 1641,—described p. 273-4.

108. (= Evst. 354) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxiv. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 302,—the work of Lucas Felix, head of the monastery; described, p. 274-5.

109. (= Evst. 356) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xxxviii. [xvii.]. _chart._ foll. 91, the work of “Romanus Vasselli” and “Michael Lodolinus.”

110. (= Evst. 357) Crypta Ferrata, Γ. β. xlii. [xvi.] _chart._ foll. 344.

111. (= Evst. 358) Crypta Ferrata, Δ. β. xxii. [xviii.] _chart._ foll. 77,—described foll. 365-6.

112. (= Evst. 312) Messina, _membr._ in 8vo. foll. 60 [xiii.],—“fragmentum parvi momenti.”

113. Syracuse (“Seminario”) _chart._ foll. 219, _mut._ given by the Cav. Landolina.

114. (= Evan. 155) Alex. Vat.

115. [I have led Scrivener into error by assigning this number (Apost. 115) to “Vat. 2068 (Basil 107).” See above, p. 495, note 1. I did not advert to the fact that “Basil 107” had _already_ been numbered “Apost. 49.”]

116. Vat. 368 (Praxapostolus) [xiii.] foll. 136, _membr._

117. (= Evst. 381) Vat. 774 [xiii.], foll. 160, _membr._

118. (= Evst. 387) Vat. 2012 (Basil 51), foll. 211 [xv.] _chart._

119. Vat. 2116 (Basil 155) [xiii.] foll. 111.

120. Alexand. Vat. 11 (Praxapostolus), [xiv.] _membr._ foll. 169.

121. (= Evst. 395) Alexand. Vat. 59 [xii.] foll. 137.

122. Alexand. Vat. 70, A.D. 1544, foll. 18: “in fronte pronunciatio Græca Latinis literis descripta.”

123. (= Evst. 400) Palatino-Vat. 241 [xv.] _chart._ foll. 149.

124. (= Evst. 410) Barb. iii. 129 (_olim_ 234) _chart._ [xiv.] foll. 189.

125. Barb. iv. 11 (_olim_ 193), A.D. 1566, _chart._ foll. 158, Praxapostolus.

126. Barb. iv. 60 (_olim_ 116) [xi.] foll. 322, a fine codex with _menologium_. Praxapostolus.

127. Barb. iv. 84 (_olim_ 117) [xiii.] foll. 185, with menologium. _Mut._

128. Paris, _Reg. Greek_, 13, _membr._ [xiii. or xiv.], a huge folio of Liturgical Miscellanies, consisting of between 6 and 900 unnumbered leaves. (At the σαββ. πρὸ των φωτων, line 11, θς ἐφα.) Communicated by the Abbé Martin.

POSTSCRIPT (NOV. 1883.)

It will be found stated at p. 495 (line 10 from the bottom) that the Codices (of “Paul” and “Apost.”) which exhibit Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη amount in all to 289.

From this sum (for the reason already assigned above), _one_ must be deducted, viz., “Apost. 115.”

On the other hand, 8 copies of “PAUL” (communicated by the Abbate Cozza-Luzi) are to be added: viz. _Vat._ 646 (Paul 310): 647 (Paul 311): 1971 (Paul 319). _Palat. Vat._ 10 (Paul 327): 204 (Paul 328). _Casanat._ G. 11, 16 (Paul 336). _Ottob._ 328 (Paul 337). _Borg._ F. vi. 16 (Paul 338). So that no less than 260 out of 262 cursive copies of St. Paul’s Epistle,—[not 252 out of 254, as stated in p. 495 (line 21 from the bottom)],—are found to witness to the Reading here contended for. The enumeration of Codices at page 494 is therefore to be continued as follows:—310, 311, 319, 327, 328, 336, 337, 338.

To the foregoing are also to be added 4 copies of the “APOSTOLUS,” viz. _Vat._ 2116 (Apost. 119). _Palat. Vat._ 241 (Apost. 123). _Barb._ iv. 11 [_olim_ 193] (Apost. 125). Paris, _Reg. Gr._ 13 (Apost. 128).

From all which, it appears that, (including copies of the “Apostolus,”) THE CODICES WHICH ARE KNOWN TO WITNESS TO ΘΕῸΣ ἘΦΑΝΕΡΏΘΗ IN 1 Tim. iii. 16, AMOUNT [289-1+8+4] TO EXACTLY THREE HUNDRED.

INDEX I, OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,—QUOTED, DISCUSSED, OR ONLY REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.

Note, that an asterisk (*) distinguishes references to the Greek Text from references to the English Translation. [Where either the Reading of the Original, or the English Translation is largely discussed, the sign is doubled (** or ++).]

Genesis ii. 4, 119 10, 180